THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION; 

BEING AN EXAMINATION OF 
OF 
IN A 
BETWEEN 

The Rev. Joseph M'Kee, of the Methodist Pro- 
testant Church, 



The Rev. Otis A'. Skinner, of the Universalis! 
fchurch. 



'Prove all things, hold fast that which is good," 

ST. PAUL. 



1835. 



WM. 



TO THE READER. 
We hereby certify, that the following are 
true copies of the letters which we addressed 1o 
each other on the subject of Universalis^ with 
the exception of some typographical errors, 
which have escaped the printer's notice, and 
which the reader can correct. 

JOSEPH M'KEE, 
OTIS A. SKINNER. 
Baltimore, June 17, 1S35. 

A list of Authors ichose works are either quoted 
or referred to, in this ivork. 
Aristotle, Balfour, Ballou, Bass, Bartholdt. 
Brewster, Buck, Calmet, Campbell, Cappe, Cle- 
ment^ Chauncy, Clarke, Cruden, Donnegan, 
Dw3'ght, Du Pin, Eickhorn, Euripedes, Eusebi- 
us, Fisk, Gill, Gilpin, Goodwin, Grotius, Grove, 
Hammond, Hesiod, Henry, Hinks, Home, Hor- 
ner, Hottinger, Hipppcraies, Hippolytus, Hud- 
son, Huntington/ Jahn, Josephus, Jones, Jona- 
than Ben Uzziel, Jorton, Kenrick, Kuinoel, 
Lardner, Lightfoot, Leusden. Maclaine, Mack- 
night, Mede, Mosheim, Hurry, Onkelos, On- 
gen, Pearce, Parkhurst , Pinder, Pickering. Pha- 
vorinus, Photius, Philc, Plato, Prideaux, Pyle, 
Rayner, Relly,, Robinson, Rossinmuller, Scott, 
Simpson, Schrevelius, Saphocles, Streeter, Stu- 
art, Tertullion, Valpy, Valentine, Watson, Wa- 
kefield, Webster, Wesley/Williams, Winches- 
ter, Whiston, Whitfield. Whitby, Whittemore, 
&c. &c. &c. 



IMDEX 

TO THE LETTERS. 



MR. M'KEE'S 



LETTERS. 


rage. 


No. I. - 


- 1 


16 11. 


16 


u HI. - 


- 31 


" IV. 


52 


« V. - 


- 67 


« VI. 


86 


« VII. - 


- 109 


« VIII. ■ 


■ 134 


IX. - 


- 159 


• X. 


191 


XI. - 


- 216 


XII. 


240 


<i XIII. - 


- 273 


' XIV. 


- 300 


: XV. - 


- 313 


XVI. 


- 327 



MR. SKINNER'S 


LETTERS* 


rage 


TV .rv T 
INO. 1. 


7 


" 11. 


23 


ec TT 
" 11. - 




IV. 




V. - 


- 75 


" VI. - 


97 


« VII. - 


- 119 


* VIII. - 


145 


" IX. - 


- 174 


" X. - 


200 


« XL - 


- 228 


" XII. - 


254 


« XIII. - 


- 284 


« XIV. - 


306 


" XV. - 


- 319 


" XVI. 


333 



INDEX 

TO THE SUBJECTS. 



Aion, derivation of. 16 17 23 25 26 27 69 70 
- 77 174 302 
* signfication of, 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 26 27 
28 29 30 74 161 162 163 164 168 169 170 
1T1 172 173 175 176 177 178 179 190 301 

302 

" plural and reduplicate form of 20 21 28 29 
71 73^82 164 185 
Amnios, derivation of - - - 3139 
66 signification of 31 S2 33 34 40 41 42 
86 93 97 106 217 220 
Aidios, meaning of - 228 237 

Akatalutos, derivation and meaning of 103 224 

234 

Angels - - - 137 239 253 

Athanasia, signification of - - 227 233 
Aphtharsia, meaning of - - 227 233 
Aphthartos, signification of - 227 233 301 
Apokteino, derivation and meaning of 62 143 
■ - - - 156 274 

Chaff. - - 109 120 156 157 241 242 
Damnation. - - 4 5 34 37 192 
Day and night, meaning of - 29 71 80 166 
Diabolos. - 96 108 139 222 

Eis, use of in governing aion. 22 29 30 72 
80 161 167 179 
Fire, unquenchable. - 24 57 145 

Feast. - - 114 127 214 

Gehenna, derivation of 53 58 282 285 304 



V 



Gehenna., signification of 3 4 10 54 55 56 
59 60 62 133 141 151 155 273 
„ , " - 274 281 304 

Hades. - - 3 55 59 129 274 283 287 
Hell. - - 4 5 54 55 57 140 192 294 
£ nma - 36 37 49 

Ktisis. - 234 313 314 315 319 320 

-Life, several sorts of. - _ 86 87 

££ everlasting. 32 40 41 88 89 97 99 102 
- - - - oj9 

^ Iaimed - - - 44 56 64 91 

^et. - _ _ in 043 

Olam. - 15 04 98 i S1 cy U m ^9 

p a "\ ' - 236 316 317 321 

irollc-i. - 036 317 318 

Rich man and Lazarus. - 115 128 245 

Sheol. - , _ 3* 4 

Sibyline Oracles. - - 146 050 

Sin, infinite. - - 9 64 76 191 

scripture names for hell . - - 192 202 

Salt. - - _ no 122 243 

fceven spirits, - - 111 122 243 
Texts, against Universalism. 

— Math. XVIII. 8- - - 34 44 

— — XXV. 41 46. 44 45 91 92 93 

*"r r " " " " 106 

— ■ Mark III. 29. 20 29 35 46 92 

- 106 163 1S6 220 

— Heb. VI. 2. 36 47 92 106 

— 2 Pet, II. 17. 20 29 163 186 

— Jnd. 7 13, 20 29 37 50 92 
" - - - 106 163 18S 

— Rev. XIV. 11. 21 29 165 187 

— — XIX. 3. 21 29 165 187 

— -~ XX. 10. 21 29 168 187 



VI 

Texts, for Universalism. 

— John XII. 32. 133 247 261 

— Rom. V. 20. 133 248 262 

— Eph. I. 9 10. 1S3 235 249 266 

— 1 John. IV. 14. 133 248 264 

— 1 Cor, X. 22. 225 233 

— 1 Cor. XV. 52. 103 225 
Targum. 55 58 138 150 272 275 279 280 

289 303 

Tetagmenoi. - - - 89 104 219 
Talents. - - - 113 126 244 

Tares. - ' - 112 124 243 

Ten virgins. - 113 125 244 

Tree. - 109 117 120 131 242 247 

Universalism, origin of. - 134 149 

history of. 2 8 67 134 13* 
146 150 250 253 
ei twelve objections to. 109 1 1 1 
113 118 119 134 240 247 255 
26a 

4£ twenty-four objections to. 192 
194 196 200 20 208 212 215 
Vine. - - - 116 24S 



INTRODUCTION. 

The circumstance which gave rise to 
this discussion was the publication of the 
following article in the Southern Pioneer 
and Gospel Visiter, a weekly journal, de- 
voted to Universalism, printed in Balti- 
more. The article was copied from the 
Christian Intelligencer. 

THE WHOLE COUNSEL. 

Br. Fletcher of the Thomaston Tele- 
scope, noting the declaration of Paul — "I 
have not shunned to declare the whole coun- 
sel of God," asks how this fact is to be ac- 
counted for consistently with the other fact 
that in all his declarations he never used 
the word hell, nor mentioned such a place 
during his whole ministry? This is, in- 
deed, an important inquiry — will some of 
our wise limitarians please to answer it? 

Soon after the publication of the above 
Mr. McKee wrote for the Pioneer, the 
following answer, over the signature Phi- 
ladelphia. 

Mr. Editor: — The Whole Counsel. 

On looking over the 22d number of the 
"Southern Pioneer." I observed an article 



viii 

headed, "The whole counsel,' 1 copied from 
another paper, in which it is asked, how 
we are to account for the fact that St. 
Paul, who shunned not to declare the whole 
counsel of God, in all his declarations dur- 
ing his ministry, never once used the word 
hell nor mentioned such a place? Take 
the following as an answer: 

1. St. Paul delivered his discourses in 
the Greek and Hebrew languages and not 
in English: therefore, it is not strange that 
he never used the old Saxon word helle, 
which is now hellin English, but itwould 
be very strange if he had used it as it nei- 
ther belonged to the languages then spo- 
ken nor was understood by the people. 

2. It is assumed as a well authenticated 
fact, that St. Paul during his whole minis- 
try never mentioned such a place as hell. 
Now as the Apostle's discourses were not 
written, who without the attribute of om- 
niscience can tell, but he did use some 
word equivalent to hell in signification 
more than a thousand times? The fact is, 
there is as much evidence to prove that he 
did as there is that he did not. 

3. St. Paul preached the doctrine of 
endless punishment as unequivocally as 
any other man ever did. For in 2 Thes. 
i. 9. he declared that the wicked should 
be punished with everlasting destruction 
from the presence of the Lord and from 



the glory of his power. Let it be observ- 
ed that the word amnios here rendered 
everlasting is the same which is used in 2 
Thes. ii. 16. to express the duration of the 
consolation of the righteous. See. 2. Tim, 
ii. 10. Rom, vi. 23, where it is similarly 
used. — And 2. Cor. iv. 18, where it de- 
notes the duration of all invisible things. 
As the same Greek word is employed to 
express both the duration of the happi- 
ness of the righteous, and the punishment 
of the wicked, what reason have we to 
believe that the latter will terminate soon- 
eh than the former? Will as many editors 
publish this answer as copied the question 
and so let it travel over the same space? 

To this Mr. Skinner gave the following 
reply: 

Reply to Philadelphia — Dear sir: 
The question to which your communica- 
tion is designed as a reply, has been re- 
peatedly propounded to our partialist 
friends; but it has never yet received a sa- 
tisfactory answer. If the popular doc- 
taine of hell torments be true, it is at least 
right to infer, that it was a doctrine of the 
apostles; and it is your duty to produce 
from their preaching authority for the sen- 
timent, or cease from preaching it. But 
how can this be done, when the leading 
apostle, the one who labored more than all 
the others, was silent on the subject? 



X 

I cannot but regard your answer as an 
entire failure. I am willing to admit that 
the apostle preached in the Hebrew 
and Greek languages; but how does this 
affect the case? The question is not, 
whether the apostle, when preaching 
in Greek, used the Saxon word hell, 
but whether he used any word expres- 
sive of the popular notion about hell? 
The Saxon word hell, is a translation of 
the Hebrew words sheol and gehenna, and 
of the Greek words hades and tartarus. 
Now as Paul did not use either Gehenna, 
Sheol, Hades or Tartarus, your answer does 
not meet the question; for Sir, your answer 
implies, that though Paul did not use our 
word hell, he used one of the same import. 
To justify the preaching of the present 
day, Paul should have been continually 
thundering about Sheol \and Gehanna } 
Hades and Tartarus. His silence, there- 
fore, on these, condemns in full, the popu- 
lar preaching of the day; for if Paul, who 
shunned not to declare the whole counsel 
of God, was silent respecting the torments 
of hell, those who are eternally preaching 
them, declare more than the counsel of 
God. 

The second point embraced in your an- 
swer, seems to us a strange conclusion. 
Why, we ask, if the doctrine of endless 
hell, is as important as partialists believe; 



xi 

did Luke, who recorded the apostle's dis- 
courses, leave out what he had said respect- 
ing it? Suppose a person should give a 
faithful record of Methodist Sermons, think 
there would be an entire silence respect- 
ing hell? 

But you say all of Paul's discourses were 
not recorded. True, but why infer that 
those left unrecorded, differ from those 
which have been preserved for our espe- 
cial guidance and edification? Why should 
those, the most important, and which con- 
tained what you call a leading doctrine of 
Christ, a doctrine essential to salvation, be 
omitted, and those which accord with the 
doctrine that God will have mercy on all, 
be recorded? You can say, that Paul used 
a word equivalent to hell a thousand times; 
but Sir, this is only your ipsi-dixit, and 
will not be sitisfactory to those who take 
the bible for their guide. 

The third point in your answer, we con- 
sider entirely destitute of foundation. Pau I 
has applied no word, unequivocal in its 
meaning, to the duration of sin or any of 
its consequences. In Methodist Sermons, 
we find endless hell, endless damnation, 
and endless torture; but no such language 
is found in the writings of Paul. 

We are aware that Paul used the word 
aionion or everlasting, but this is applied 
to hills, mountains, covenants, priesthoods^ 



xu 

and a great variety of things, limited in 
their nature, so that the word is equivocal. 
Nov/ as it is the strongest word used by 
the Apostle in connexion with misery, 
how can it be said, that he as unequivo- 
cally preached endless punishment, as any 
man living? 

The text to which you have referred as 
proof is far from being to the point. If 
you will look at the connexion, you will 
see that the time of that destruction was 
when the Jews were destroyed by the 
the Romans. Who were to be destroyed* 
Ans. Those that persecuted the christians. 
When were they to be destroyed? Ans? 
when Christ came to take vengeance on 
his enemies. But when was Christ thus to 
come? Ans. Before the generation then 
living passed away. Hence the christians 
were besought by the coming of Christ, 
not to be troubled by letter or spirit, as 
that the day of Christ was at hand. The 
presence of the Lord from which they 
were punished was Jerusalem, where the 
Jews considered that God's presence could 
be alone enjoyed, and where they went up 
to worship. Sec. 2d. Kings l3. 23 See 
also 1st. Kings chap. 8. 

But you say, this word aionion is the 
one employed to express the duration of 
the consolation of the righteous. Were 
this granted, the instance to which you re- 



xfii 



fer is proof against you, for it says, "Now 
our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God ? 
even our Father, which hath saved us, and 
hath given us everlasting consolation and 
good hope through grace, comfort your 
hearts, and establish you in every good 
word and work." In these words the 
Apostle had no reference to a future state: 
he was speaking of the happiness which 
they, as christians, then enjoyed. But 
could they not fall back and lose their faith 
and love? Did not the apostle exhort his 
brethren to continue faithful unto the end? 
Did not the love of many wax cold in 
his day as the consequence of persecution? 
Then their consolation was not endless^ 
although styled everlasting. 

If, however, 2d. Thess. ii. 16. referred 
to futurity, it would fail of sustaining your 
position. We admit that aionis often used 
in an unlimited sense; but as it is variously 
used, sometimes in a limited and sometimes 
in an unlimited sense, it is for you to prove, 
that when applied to punishment, it signi- 
fies endless. The circumstance that things 
unseen are called aionion, proves nothing, 
because their nature is endless; and there- 
fore, the word when applied to them has 
an endless signification, the same as when 
applied to God. As 2 Tim. ii. 10, and 
Rom. vi. 22, would not sustain your views, 
even admitting they refer to futurity, I 



xiv 



will pass them by simply remarking, that 
it is not enough to prove that we read of 
aionion glory and aionion life; for the glory 
and life of the Gospel are entirely different 
in their nature from punishment. Besides, 
there are other words applied to the glory 
and life of the Gospel, which are strictly 
unequivocal in their meaning — such as end- 
less, incorruptible and immortal — words 
that are never applied to sin or any of its 
consequences. Your conclusion, therefore, 
respecting the duration of punishment is 
unfounded. Indeed, I might as well say, 
because alon is applied to the priesthood of 
Aaron, it is endless, as you can say, punish- 
ment is endless, because we read of aion- 
ion punishment. 

In the same paper containing the above ; 
Mr. Skinner published the note, soon after 
which Mr. M'Kee accepted the proposi- 
tion. 

We understand that Philadelphia wishes 
to have a controversy with us through the 
columns of the Pioneer. We will cheer- 
fully comply w ith his request on condition 
that he will write over his own signature, 
«nd on no other condition. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



LETTER, NO. I. 

Baltimore, Oct. 20th, 1834. 
To Rev. Otis A. Skinner; 

Dear Sir, — T perceive by a note in the 24th 
number of the "Southern Pioneer 5 ' that you 
have no objection to discuss the doctrine of 
Universalism with " Philadelphia" through 
your columns, on the condition that he will write 
over his proper signature. With this condi- 
tion I will cheerfully comply and shall there- 
fore proceed, bye and bye> to offer some objec- 
tions to the system of Universalism, and try to 
refute the arguments by which it is supported, 
as far as they have come to my knowledge or 
shall come to it. I wish to pursue this course 
because I consider it a duty I owe to truth, to 
my neighbour, and to God; as I am fully per- 
suaded the doctrine in question is a dangerous 
heresy, first introduced into the christian church 
by Origin and Clement of Alexandria, and 
afterwards propagated by artful and cunning 



2 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION". 



men, who found it necessary to resort to the* 
mean artifice of torturing and perverting the 
words and phrases of Sacred Scripture from 
their proper signification, to render the doc- 
trine plausible in the estimation of the illite- 
rate. Universalism appears rather to be a heap 
of wild confusion without form, than a system, 
possessing that regularity and consistency which 
are necessary to attract the attention of wise 
and discriminating men. It is more like the 
confusion of Babel than a doctrine coming from 
a God of order and regularity, It appears to 
me that every Universalist has a view of the 
doctrine peculiar to himself, or, rather holds a 
doctrine which is the mere creature of his own 
imagination. When searching after truth I 
found the following Jive systems of Universal- 
ism, all of which have been taught by Univer- 
salists by means of books and otherwise, each 
of which differs from the rest in some impor- 
tant point or other. 

1. There is a dreadful hell or place of pun- 
ishment in which the wicked of mankind and 
all devils shall be punished after this life but it 
is not eternal, for it will come to an end and all 
its inhabitants shall escape to the mansions of 
endless felicity. 

2. The wicked shall be punished in propor- 
tion to theii crimes, in a future state, and there- 
by fully satisfy all the demands of the law, and 
finally get to Heaven upon the ground of right, 
independently of the mercy of God or the atone- 
ment made by Jesus Christ. 

3* The wicked shall be punished proportion- 
ably to the magnitude and number of their 
crimes, but it is not known whether it shall 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



8 



lake place in this li r e or that which is to come, 
after which they shall be saved by forgiveness 
of sin through the mercy of God. 

4. There is no hell or place of punishment in 
n future state of existence, for all the wicked 
shall be punished in this life and shall go direct 
to Heaven the instant the soul leaves the body. 

5. The soul is not immortal in its rature or 
constitution, and therefore the souls of the 
wicked shall be annihilated. 

Now, sir, I wish to know which of these five 
systems I am to take for genuine Universalism. 
Each had its time, its admirers and its advo- 
cates. Which one do you espouse? Or do you 
support the whole en masse? Or, have you in- 
vented one of your own? To these inquiries I 
wish you to give me decisive answers, as I will 
then know how to proceed and not till then. 

These questions 1 consider altogether fair 
and proper, consequently I will expect an un- 
equivocal answer to each of them. If you do 
not answer them I will think that you wish to 
keep the people in the dark on the subject be- 
cause you know it will not bear the light of an 
open and candid investigation. 

With regard to your "reply to Philadelphia" 
I would remark, that the doctrine of endless 
punishment is not depending entirely on Paul, 
Peter, John, or Jude; nor is it depending for 
support on the words sheol, gehenna, hades, or 
tartarus: for, there are other proofs which \ 
have to lay before your readers, that will be 
more difficult for you to digest than perhaps 
any which you have let into your paper, though 
I shall avail myself of all the helps I can col- 
lect from those sources. Suppose for the pre - 



4 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



sent (which I by no means admit) that Paul 
was silent on the subject of endless punishment; 
does his silence prove there is no such doctrine 
as endless punishment? Certainly not. Are 
there not other inspired writers equal in autho- 
rity with Paul? This you must admit unless 
you allow that Paul was a Pope. Then, ifany 
inspired writer taught the doctrine of endless 
torment or of an endless hell, is not the doctrine 
true? Neither Paul or any other inspired wri- 
ter ever said or wrote, that the future punish- 
ment of the wicked would come to an end or 
that it was not eternal. Nearly all the inspir- 
ed writers have declared, either directly or in- 
directly that it will not come to an end and that 
it is eternal. What then am I to believe re- 
garding Universalism? Whether am I to be- 
lieve the infallible word of God or the word of 
fallen and depraved man ? I leave the reader 
to judge in this case and form his own conclu- 
sion. 

You say that in order to justify the preaching 
of the present day, "Paul should have been 
continually thundering about sheol, and gehen- 
na" &c. In reply 1 would say that the "Me- 
thodist sermons" which are so full of hell, hell 
fire, damnation } eternal damnation, damnation 
of hell, &c. &c, have for their example a high- 
er authority than Paul. '1 hey have the exam- 
ple of Jesus Christ who taught the truth of God in 
a clearer and fuller manner than any man ever 
did. And this is all the authority f want to 
justify the "popular preaching" of the present 
day. Asa few instances of this I submit the 
following to your consideration and for the infor- 
mation of your readers: — "Fear him who ,after 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



5 



he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell" 
(gehenna) Luke xii. 5. "Whosoever shall 
say thou tool shall be in danger of hell fire (ge- 
henna) Matt. v. 22. See also Matt. v. 29, 30, 
and xviii. 9, where the word gehenna is used, 
which you say had it been used by Paul would 
justify the popular pitching of the present day. 
"Ye devour widows' houses, &c. therefore ye 
shall receive the greater damnation" Matt 
xxiii. 14. ff He that shall blaspheme against 
the Holy Ghost, &c, is in danger of eternal 
damnation" (aionion) Mark iii. 29. "How 
can ye escape the damnation of hell" (gehenna) 
Matt, xxiii. S3. We consider these expres- 
sions, sir, which were employed by our blessed 
Saviour in the course of his preaching, perfect- 
ly sufficient io justify and authorize the present 
mode of preaching among the Methodists, while 
we regard the Universalists as anti-christian in 
their doctrine, so far as they oppose the doctrine 
taught by Christ. It cannot be denied that 
they either omit the doctrine of hell and dam- 
nation or deny the existence of such misery and 
punishment, and in this instance we must re- 
gard them as holding a dangerous heresy un- 
known in the days of Christ and his Apostles. 

You say that if I look at the connexion of 
the text in 2 Thes. 1. 9. 1 will see that the des- 
truction alluded to was that of the Jews by the 
Romans. ISow, sir, 1 look upon this as one of 
those perversions of scripture which is never 
used in a good cause, but always required to 
support a bad one. Who in his proper senses 
could think for a moment that Paul had any 
allusion whatever to the destruction of the Jews 
by the Romans? I cannot think he had the 



6 



THEOLOICAL DISCUSSION. 



slightest reference to that catastrophe, for the 
following reasons: — 

1. The epistle was written to a church chief- 
ly composed of converts from among the Gen- 
tiles who were -not greatly interested in the 
affairs of the Jewish nation. 

2. The Apostle throughout the whole epistle 
never once names either the Jewish nation or 
the Roman army , nor any other appellation by 
which either can be reasonably understood; 
consequently there is no reason for believing he 
had any reference to the overthrow of the Jew- 
ish nation. 

3. Upon a review of the chapter an unpre- 
judiced person would see several things that 
would lead him to conclude that the destruction 
in question was to take place at the day of judg- 
ment: for instance, the phrase, "taking ven- 
geance on them that know not God" This 
cannot be said of the Jews, but of the Gentiles, 
as the former did know God in theory at least, 
while the latter did not know him. "Admired 
in all them that believe." The Redeemer 
could not be admired in ALL short of the day 
of judgment but only of a part of them. 

4. But what seems to determine the matter 
to a certainty is, the caution given in the second 
chapter, where the apostle cautions them lest 
they should be shaken in mind, as if these ihings 
were to happen immediately; at the same time 
he assures them that that overthrow should not 
happen till after the establishment of antichrist 
or man of §in, whose destruction should be ac- 
complished in the general overthrow of the ene- 
ies of the saints. It is obvious that this pro- 
phesy is not yet accomplished. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



7 



5. All the commentators that I have con- 
sulted on the meaning; ol this epistle agree m 
referring the principal transactions of it to the 
judgment of the great day when the secrets of 
all hearts shall be made manifest by Jesus 
Christ. 

You say, "we are aware that Paul used the 
word aionion or everlasting, but this is applied 
to hills, mountains, covenants, priesthoods, and 
a great variety of things, limited in their na- 
ture. 55 I confess, sir, that I have read this 
sentence with perfect astonishment. Was it 
written with a design to deceive the unlearned? 
I absolutely deny that the word aionion was 
ever used by any inspired writer to signify the 
duration of a hill, mountain or priesthood, ex- 
cept the priesthood of Christ. 1 challenge you 
to produce one instance of it. If you show me 
one instance of it I here promise to give up the 
argument so far as the word aionios is concern- 
ed. You may expect to hear from me before 
long concerning the words aion and aionios. 
Yours, in the bonds of a peaceful Gospel, 
Joseph McKee. 



LETTER NO. I. 

Baltimore, Oct. 24, 1834. 
To Rev. Joseph McKee: 

Dear Sir — hi our zeal to sustain a favorite 
theory, we often attach a high importance to 
circumstances of a trifling nature, and to argu- 
ments that have no connexion with our subject. 



8 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



Such I consider to be the case, with your re- 
marks on the difference of opinion among Uni- 
versalists; for none who consider the nature of 
the human mind and the result of controversy ^ 
can expect a perfect uniformity in faith, among 
a people, who think and judge for themselves. 
Such a uniformity exists among no sect in Chris- 
tendom. Besides, if your argument is good, it 
can be wielded with irresistible power, against 
all Protestants; yea, against all religion. 

But what is this mighty difference to which 
you attach such great importance? To make 
it imposing as possible, you have drawn lines 
of distinction, where no difference exists ; you 
have ascribed to us sentiments, in which we have 
no faith; and you have christened as Univer- 
salism, 1 hat .which wars against our very name. 
What is the real difference between the first 
and second systems, which you ascribe to Uni- 
versalists ? Where did you learn, that they ex- 
pect to get to Heaven on the ground of right, 
independent of the mercy of God? And where 
did you learn that some Universalists advocate 
the annihilation of the wicked? As annihila- 
tion is not salvation, you do violence to lan- 
guage, in saying, that some Universalists, hold 
that the wicked will be annihilated. Your 
question, whether I support the five systems 
en masse, even if Universalists believed them, 
should never have been penned. However, the 
judgment will be upon your own head. 

There is but a trifling difference among Uni- 
versalists. All believe that punishment is de- 
signed to reform, and that it will in no case be 
continued after reformation is produced. None 
believe that it is salvation, that it entitles to 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



salvation, or that it is the only means of salva- 
tion. The difference then is simply in regard 
to the duration of punishment. Some think it 
all confined to this world. Others, that it ex- 
tends to the future. This latter is my opinion. 

Here then are only shades of difference. But 
look at the conflicting systems of partialism, 
and you will observe differences of the greatest 
magnitude. By one, we are taught, that an 
eternal decree of God, passed for his own glory 
and pleasure, drives some down to the gates of 
endless ruin. By another, that God is not ar- 
bitrary, and that endless misery is a punish- 
ment, of our voluntary transgressions. This 
latter tea:hes, that sin is infinite, and that we 
shall be endlessly punished, for the sins of this 
life ; while another teaches, that we shall be 
endlessly miserably not because our sins are 
infinite, but because we shall sin eternally. — 
One system teaches, that hell is paved with in- 
fant skulls, and another, that all infants will be 
happy. One teaches, that all the heathen will 
be lost, and another, that a part, at least, 
will be saved. In vain then, do we look to par- 
tial ism, for those beautiful proportions, and that 
union, perfection and agreement, which are the 
distinguishing glories of the temple of truth 

Indeed, such is the wide difference [of opinion, 
that we hear continually, both from the mas- 
ter builders and the workmen, on these modern 
babels, the noise of war and the confusion of 
tongues. He that is first in his own cause 
seemeth just, but his neighbor cometh and search- 
eth him. 

I admit that Paul's silence respecting Gehen- 
na, is not positive proof that punishment is Yb- 



10 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

mited ; but I find it impossible to reconcile his 
silence, admitting an endless punishment, with 
his declaration, that he declared the whole coun- 
sel of God. Still, if you can prove your doc- 
trine from other inspired writers, you refute 
Universalism, but you do not answer the ques- 
tion which you attempted. Do you intend to 
perplex me with much proof like the following: 
" Neither Paul or any other inspired writer 
taught that punishment would come to an end. 
Nearly all have declared, either directly or in- 
directly, that it will not come to an end. Whe- 
ther am I to believe the infallible word of God 
or the word of fallen man' 5 ? Who desired you 
to believe the word of man? Surely Univer- 
salists have made no such repuest. But when 
you, as in the words above, give us your ipse 
dixit concerning what the Apostles did and did 
not teach, we are left to infer, that you would 
wish us to take your word, rather than that of 
God. 

Your remarks on Gehenna, require but a 
few words. I shall not consider your proof 
texts, until you give your reasons for applying 
them as you have. Neither will we argue the 
question, whether Christ is better authority 
than Paul, for I consider both good } but we will 
consider the fact, that while Jesus spoke of Ge- 
henna, Paul was silent respecting it. Now if 
Gehenna in Paul's day,, was the common word 
to designate a place of endless misery, and if 
Jesus used it in this sense, how shall we account 
for the fact, that Gehenna is not to be found in 
all the preaching and writing of Paul? 

The new positions taken in your second let- 
ter, compel me to propose this question, as they 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



II 



bring up an entire new subject for discussion. 
The original question, had do relation to the 
meaning of Gehenna, but it referred entirely to 
the fact, that Paul never used it. Hence the 
propriety of my remark, that Paul, to justify 
the preaching of the present age, should have 
been continually thundering about Gehenna &c. 
Therefore you have perverted my meaning, in 
saying, I admit, that had Paul used Gehenna, 
it would have justified the popular preaching 
about hell. I admitted nothing of the kind. 

I was simply considering the circumstance of 
Paul's not using Gehenna, without any refer- 
ence to its meaning, which was agreeable to 
the original question. But now, as you have 
abandoned the first question, and adopted one 
in relation to the meaning of Gehenna, I shall 
expect your particular attention to the question 
proposed, and to your proofs for applying Ge- 
henna as you have. 

In considering what you have said respect- 
ing 2. Thes. 1. 9. I shall pass in silence your 
charge of c< perversion of scripture" and want 
of "sensed' for they are entirely gratuitous, 
and can do me no injury, and you no service. 

To your 1st proposition I reply : It matters 
not of whom the church at Thessalonica were 
composed, or whether they were interested in the 
affairs of the Jewish nation^ since they were 
troubled and persecuted on every hand by the 
Jews. See Acts xvii. 13. where you will find 
an explanation of the phrase, <c you who are 
troubled rest with us." These persecutions, 
gave the Thessalonians a thrilling interest in the 
question, when the Jewish government was to 
be abolished ? Hence the language, rest with 



12 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



us — when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed — tak- 
ing vengeance, fyc. 

To your 2d proposition I reply : To say that 
Paul uses no appellation by which the Jews cr 
the Roman army can be understood, is assum- 
ing; the point in question. If the Jews were 
not intended, whom did Paul mean, by them 
that troubled the Christians? And if the Ro- 
man army was not intended, what did he mean 
by taking vengeance 1 In Matt. 24th chapter, 
which all refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, 
the Jews are not named ; neither is the Roman 
army. But whoever brought this as an argu- 
ment against the common application of the 
chap. ? It speaks of persecution, exhorts to 
faithfulness by the coming of Christ, and threat- 
ens the persecutors with destruction. Now the 
same persecutions are mentioned, the same ex- 
hortations given, and the same judgments de- 
nounced in Thess. and the time of the destruc- 
tion is in both, declared to be, at the coming or 
revelation of Christ. Must not the Apostle 
then, have referred to the overthrow of the Jew- 
ish nation ? 

To your 3d proposition I reply : When we 
connect, and obey not the Gospel, with the 
phrase, know not God, it is impossible to resist 
the conclusion, that Jews were intended; for 
those who had not heard the Gospel, could not 
be damned for not obeying it. Besides, in the 
scriptural sense, the Jews were ignorant of 
God, and of the great work which he was do- 
ing. As vengeance is frequently used to ex- 
press temporal punishments, I can see no reason 
for leferring it in this instance, to a judgment 
beyond this world. See Isai. xxxiv, 8 ; xlvii. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 13 



3. Jer. li. 6; 36. In Luke xxi. 22, vm- 
geance is applied to the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem. The word therefore is against you. In- 
asmuch as all the churches enjoyed a season of 
rest, after th« destruction of Jerusalem, I can 
see no difficulty in the phrase, admired in all 
them that believe. It is the same as, glorified 
in his saints. Language far more comprehen- 
sive, is used with reference to the coming of 
Christ. See Matt. xvi. 27. where the phrase 
every man is used; and Matt. xxiv. 14. where 
the phrases, all the world and all nations, are 
used. 

Your 4th proposition is refuted by the cir- 
cumstances, which called forth the Epis. from 
which the text under consideration is taken. — 
From some circumstance, many of the Thessa- 
lonians believed that the coming of Christ was 
immediately to take place. The 2d Epis. to 
them was written partly to correct this error. 
Hence the Apostle says, "Now I beseech you 
brethren by the coming of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 
that ye be not soon shaken in mind or be trou- 
bled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by 
letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at 
hand." Now while the Apostle cautions them 
against expecting Christ immediately, and of 
being deceived, he holds up the idea, that Christ 
would come in their day. Hence after having 
said the day would not come unless there was a 
falling away, and the man of sin was revealed, 
he speaks of his already working, and of there 
being then signs of the iniquity, that would fore- 
tell the day. Suppose the day was a general 
judgment; how could it Ipe uncertain? How 



14 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



could it depend on there being a falling away 
first? 

On your 5th proposition, I will only say; 
had your reading been more extensive, you 
would have found commentators, who agree 
with the opinion, which I have advanced. — 
Hammond and Cappe both refer the text to the 
destruction of Jerusalem. So does Gill, though 
he afterwards contradicts the opinion. And 
Clarke has some doubts on the subject. 

As2dThess. 1. 5 — 10. is regarded,asorieofthe 
strongest texts, in favor of endless misery, I am 
anxious to have it fully discussed. And for this 
purpose, I will propose the following questions: 
1st. If the revelation of Christ, here mentioned, 
was not his coming at the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, wherein was the propriety, of exhorting 
the Thessalonians to faithfulness, with refer- 
ence to it? " You who are troubled, rest with 
us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from 
Heaven, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on 
iriem that know not God. 5 ' This, when con- 
sidered with the verses in connexion, (see v. 5.) 
shows, that at Christ's coming, they would be 
delivered from suffering and persecution. But 
if we make this coming, still future, how can 
that be? Such exhortations are common. u For 
ye have need of patience ; that, after ye have 
done the will of God, ye might receive the pro- 
mise. For yet a little while, and he that shall 
come, will come, and will not tarry ." Heb. 
viii. 36, 37. 

2d. Was not the Apostle speaking particu- 
larly of the persecuted Christians and their de- 
liverance; of their persecutors and their pun- 
ishment? Seeing it is a righteous thing with 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 15 



God to recompense tribulation to them, that 
trouble you; and to you who are troubled, &c. 
This language shows, that he was speaking, not 
of a general judgment, but a particular judg- 
ment, to come on the Jews lor troubling the 
Christians. 

3d. How will you reconcile the uncertainty 
of the day, with the idea, that it refers to a future- 
judgment? " For that day, shall not come,, 
except there come a falling away first" v. 3. 
chap. ii. 

4th. Are not those who troubled the chris- 
tians, the same, as the man of sin — the son of 
perdition? See v. 7. chap. 2d, where Paul 
says, the mystery of iniquity doth already work. 
See also v. 8. which teaches, that when this 
wicked one was revealed, he would be con* 
sumed by the brightness of the Lord's coming*. 
And if so, must not his coming, have been in 
that age? 

You express great astonishment at my say- 
ing aionion or everlasting is applied to hills;: 
but why this astonishment, since aion is synon- 
amous with olam?) You ask, if I wrote this to< 
deceive the unlearned? But before you threw 
out such an insinuation, you should have proven^ 
that the learned are wrong in saying, that aioru 
expresses the meaning of olam. I am, &c. 

Otis A. Skinner- 



16 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



LETTER NO. II. 

Baltimore, Oct. 27, 1834. 

To Rev. Otis A. Skinner: 

Dear Sir : — I promised in my last communi- 
cation to send you something concerning the 
words axon and aionios. I now proceed to ful- 
fil my promise. As the discussion of these two 
words would occupy too much space for one 
number of your paper I shall now confine my- 
self to the noun aion. A proper understand- 
ing of the derivation and true signification of 
this word will cast much light on the present 
controversy. I find that the Universalists ge- 
nerally wish to keep the etymology of this word 
in the dark, because every well informed man 
among them must be aware that a proper de- 
velopment of it would overthrow their whole 
system. This disposition is manifest in your 
sermon on a paragraph of Matthew's Gospel, 
which you erroneously call "the parable of the 
sheep and the goats," where'you say, you "will 
not stop to enquire into the etymological mean- 
ing of the (original) word." Now, sir, I think 
all good critics will agree with me when 1 say 
that a proper knowledge of the etymology of a 
word is indispensably necessary in order to 
have a ri^ht understanding of its true significa- 
tion. Believing this to be the fact I shall pro- 
ceed to shew its derivation and signification 
according to some of the best critics that ever 
wrote on the subject. 

Aristotle, of whom Dr. A. Clarke says, " a 
higher authority need not be sought," says the 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



17 



word aion is compounded of aei, always, and on, 
thing, and properly signifies always being, or 
eternity. Be Coel lib. 1. chap. 9. 

Philo, andPhavorinuSj derive aion from aci, 
ever, and on, existing, everlasting. Muffner's 
serm. on future punishment, page 24. 

Bass, in his Greek and English Lexicon de- 
rives the word from aei, ever, and on, h^i::g, 
unlimited duration. Lomion Edit. 18*20. 

Grove, in his Greek and English Dictionary 
derives the word aion from aei, ever, and on, 
being, eternity. Boston Edit. 1833. 

Parkhurst, says aion is derived from aei and 
on, always being, eternity. Greek and Eng- 
lish Lexicon, London Edit. 1822. 

Dr. Clarke says aion comes from aei always, 
and on, being, or existence, and affirms that, 
"there is no word in any language which more 
forcibly points out the grand characteristic of 
eternity — that whicft always exists. * # * * It is 
the gramatical and proper sense of it, that must 
be resorted to in any controversy concerning 
the word." Notes on Matt. vii. 13. Again, 
"aion, aei, on, continual being; and no words 
can more forcibly point out eternity than these." 
Notes on Matt. xxiv. 3. Again, "aion from 
aei always, and on being, or existence. And 
indeed no words can more forcibly convey the 
idea of eternity than these." JS r otes on John 
xvii. 3. Again, "aion signifies complete, or 
everlasting existence, or eternity." Notes on 
Acts iii 21. And again, "those who bring- 
any of these terms, (olam and aion) in an ac- 
commodated sense, to favour a particular doc- 
trine, &c, must depend on the good graces of 
their opponents, for permission to use them in 



18 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



this way. For as the real gramatical meaning 
of both words is eternal, and all other mean- 
ing's accommodated ones, sound criticism, in all 
matters of dispute concerning' the import of 
a word or term, must have recourse to the gra- 
matical meaning, and its use among the earli- 
est and most correct writers in the language; 
and will determine all accommodated meanings 
by this alone. Now, the first and best writers 
in both these languages apply olam and aion to 
express eternal in the proper meaning of that 
word ; and this is their proper meaning in the 
Old and New Testaments when applied to God, 
his attributes, his operations taken in connex- 
ion with the ends for which he performs them, 
for whatsoever he doth it shall be forever. — 
Eccl. iii. 14. * # * * The word is with the 
same strict propriety, applied to the rewards 
and punishments in a future state. And the 
argument that pretends to prove, and it is only 
pretension, that in the future punismhent of the 
wicked "the worm shall die" and cf the fire 
shaU be quenched" will apply as forcibly to the 
state of happy spirits, and as fully prove, that 
a point in eternity shall arrive when the repose 
of the righteous shall be interrupted, and ihe 
glorification of the children of God have an e- 
ternal end. The absurdity of such tenets pre- 
vents them from becoming very dangerous." 
Thus far Dr. Clarke. See Notes on Gen. xxi. 33. 

Now, sir, having clearly shewn from the a- 
bove cited authorities that the proper, etymo- 
logical, and gramatical signification of the 
Greek noun aion is unlimited duration, eterni- 
ty in the proper sense of the word, I shall now 
proceed to consider it as found in the New Tes- 



THEOLOGICAL. DISCUSSION. 



19 



tament. The word aion occurs 63 times in the 
singular number, 18 times in the plural, and 
23 times in a double, or reduplicate form. If 
each reduplication be considered as a single in- 
stance the whole number will be 104 times in 
the New Testament. But, to be more parti- 
cular. The word aion is sometimes used in a 
metaphorical sense and by way of accommoda- 
tion applied, in some instances, to things that 
are not in themselves eternal in the proper 
sense of the word. In all cases where this oc- 
curs there is sufficient intimation of it given in 
the sentence ; but, if no such intimation be 
given the proper and grammatical meaning must 
always be taken unless it involve a palpable ab- 
surdity or contradiction. This rule is tena- 
ciously adhered to by all good critics in all theo- 
logical disputations. 

This noun in the singular number is used 27 
times in a metaphorical sense, and signifies a 
temporary duration. It is 20 times translated 
"this world" 6 times "the world" and 1 time 
"that world" The following are the places 
where it is employed in this accommodated 
sense:— Matt. xii. 32; xiii. 22; 39, 40, 49; 
xxiv. 3; xxviii. 20; Mark iv. 19; Luke i. 70; 
xvi. 8; xx. 34, 35; Acts iii. 21; Rom. xii. 2; 
1 Cor. i. 20; ii. 6 twice, 8,' iii. 18; 2 Cor. iv. 4; 
Gal. i. 4; Eph. i. 21; ii. 2; vi. 12; 1 Tim. vi. 
17; 2 Tim. iv. 10; Tit. ii. 12. 

This word is used 36 times in the singular 
to signify endless duration, and is 20 times ren- 
dered, "for ever" 7 times "never " 3 times 
" the world to come" twice " ever" 1 time 
"since the world began" 1 time "from the be- 
ginning of the world" 1 time, "while the world 
3 



23 



THEOLOGICAL, DISCUSSION. 



siandeth " and 1 time " for 'evermore The 
places are as follows: — Matt. xxi. 19; Mark x. 
30; xi. 14; Luke i. 55; xviii. 30; John iv. 14; 
vi. 51, 58; viii. 35 twice; 51, 52; ix. 32; x. 28; 
xi. 26; xii 34; xiii. 8; xiv. 16; Acts xv 18; 
1 Cor. viii. 13; 2 Cor. ix. 9; Heb. v. 6; vi. 5, 
20; vii. 17, 21, 22, 28; 1 Pet. i. 23, 25; 2 Pet. 
iii 18; 1 John ii. 17; 2 John 2. In the follow- 
ing three places the word is employed to ex- 
press the illimitable duration of the punishment 
of the wicked. Mark iii. 29; 2 Pet. ii. 17; 
Jud. 13. 

The word aion occurs 18 times in the plural 
form, and in the 6 following; places it has a 
figurative and limited signification where it is 
three times translated "ike world," twice "the 
worlds," and 1 time "the ages." 1 Cor. ii. 1\ 
x. 11; Eph. ii. 7; Heb. i. 2; ix. 26; xi. 3. 

The word in the plural form signifies endless- 
duration in the 12 following places, and is 7 
times rendered "forever," twice "eternal," 1 
time "for ever more," 1 time 'from the begin- 
ning of the world," and 1 time "ages." Matt, 
vi. 13; Luke i. 33; Rom. i. 25; ix. 5; xi. 36; 
xvi. 27; 2 Cor. xi. 31; Eph. iii. 9; 11; Col. i. 
26; 1 Tim. i. 17; Heb. xiii. 8. 

The word aion in a doubled or reduplicate 
form as, oi aiones ton aionon occurs 23 times 
only in the New Testament, and is invariably 
employed to express endless duration. It is 
21 times translated "forever and ever," 1 time 
c< for 'evermore. " and 1 time "throughout all. ages, 
world without end." This phrase is employed 
10 times to express the interminable duration 
of the glorv of the ever blessed God; as follows: 
Gal. i. 5; Eph. iii. 21; Phil. iv. 20; ITim, i. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 21 

17; 2 Tim. iv. 18; Hob xiii. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 11; 
v. 11; Rev. i. 6; vii. 12. ft is 4 times used to 
■express the eternity, or eternal duration of the 
Deity. Rev. iv. 9, 10; x. 6; xv. 7. It is 1 
time employed to denote the eternity of the 
Throne of Jehovah. Kt-b. i. S. It is I time 
used to express the immortality and eternity of 
Christ. Rev. i. 18. Once to show the dura- 
tion of Christ's reign. Rev. xi. 15. Twice to 
express the duration of his glory. Rev. v. 13, 
14. It is once employed to express the dura 
tion of the happiness of the redeemed. Rev. 
xxii. 5. It is one time employed to denote the 
duration of the punishment of those idolaters 
that worshiped the beast and his image, and 
received his mark in their forehead. Rev. xiv. 
11. In one place it expresses the duration of 
the fire that shall burn the mystical Babylon. 
Rev. xix. 3. And lastly it is one time used to 
denote the duration of the torment which the 
devil, the beast, and the false prophet shall en- 
dure in the lake of fire. Rev. xx. 10. The 
above cited are the only places where this 
phrase is to be found among the inspired writ- 
ers; and, in every case it is used in its literal 
and grammatical signification, which is time 
without end, or eternity in the proper sense of 
the word. I apprehend there can be no dis- 
pute about this. It is spoken 19 times relative 
to the being and attributes of God. One time 
respecting the future happiness of the saints; 
and three times (most awful thought!) to ex- 
press the eternity of future punishment. Of 
the 104 times in which this word occurs in the 
New Testament, only 83 cases relate to tempo- 
rary duration, 65 cases are acknowledged, on 



22 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



on all hands, to signify endless duration, and 6 
relate to the endless punishment of the damned. 
The word axon is governed by the preposition 
eis sixty-one times in the New Testament. It 
is never used in this construction in any one of 
the 33 cases of temporary duration. In the six 
cases of endless punishment the word is used 
in this construction; and in the other fifty-five 
cases it is readily acknowledged to have an 
endless signification. What then, I ask, would 
any sensible, unprejudiced man conclude con- 
cerning the six cases of future punishment, but 
that they signified endless duration as well as 
the other fifty-five cases of the same construc- 
tion. For the truth of these matters I appeal 
to the candid reader who understands the Greek 
Testament. I am well aware that the Univer- 
salists endeavor to raise as many quibbles as 
possible concerning the singular and the plural 
of this word, and its doubled form, and the par- 
ticles connected with it in the Septuagint ver- 
sion of the Bible, evidently through ignorance, 
or design to deceive the unlearned. For I ne- 
ver saw any thing of this kind but what, a scho- 
lar would despise. I assert, once for all, with- 
out fear of successful contradiction, that no 
profound scholar but an impostor would say 
that axon in the six places under consideration 
did not mean endless punishment. 

You may expect to hear from me bye and 
bye respecting the adjective aionios. 

As early an insertion of this article as possi- 
ble will much oblige me as it is likely I will 
have to leave this city before long. 

Believe me to be yours in the best of bonds y 
Joseph McKee. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



2H 



LETTER m II. 

Baltimore, Nov. 1, 1834. 

To Rev. Joseph McKee: 

Dear Sir: — Your letter embraces the sub- 
stance of all the arguments, drawn from axon, 
against our faith; and I am pleased, that you 
have succeeded in presenting their whole 
strength, in so few words. As much depends 
upon a correct understanding of the word, it is 
important that it should be critically and care- 
fully examined. I believe you right in your 
derivation of it, but wrong: in your definition. 

I object in toto to your manner of quoting 
authorities. They should be given in full, or 
not at all. Besides. Jfristoile and Philo are 
secondhand; and if what you have quoted is 
their whole definition, they differ from all other 
Lexicographers. £u . I have reason to believe 
\our quotations imperfect; for Rev. E. S. 
Goodwin, afier a minute and critical examina- 
tion of Aristotle's writings — an examination 
aided by three sources 01 evidence, etymology, 
lexicography and the actual usage of aion, says, 
that he never uses it as signifying eternity, but 
as denoting being, life, existence, without de- 
noting their duration. He says this also, of 
Homer, Hesiod, sEschylus, Pindar, Sophocles, 
Hippocrates, Euripides, and Plato. 

Your quotation from Dr. Clarke will have 
but little weight, when it is considered* that 
what he wrote, was to defend his favorite theo- 
ry, and not to inquire after the true meaning of 
3* 



24 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



aion. His attempt to strain an argument from 
Eccl. iii. 14. is in perfect keeping with his 
monkey exposition. You mi^ht as well say, 
the earth is endless, because the work of God, 
as punishment, because inflicted by him. That 
olam and aion are endless, when applied to 
God, none deny; but does this prove them end- 
less, when applied to things temporal? The 
Dr's position here is a perfect, sophism. Prove 
that punishment is endless, or that Solomon 
was speaking of punishment in Eccl. iii. 14, 
and then, it will be time to say, that olam and 
aion are endless, when connected with it. His 
play upon the phrase unquenchable fire, is at 
the expense of truth; for if you will turn to 
Isa. xxxiv. 9 — 11; Isai. 6G. *24; Jer. xvii. 27; 
Eze. xx. 45 — 48, you will find, that an un- 
quenchable fire is not endless, and an undying 
worm not immortal. These are expressive phra- 
ses; but they are fully explained, by the refer- 
ences which I have made. 

You accuse me, in common with Universal- 
ists, of wishing to divert the public mind, from 
the etymology of aion. Such is not the fact. 
The admissions of our opposers, have ren- 
dered it unnecessary to investigate its etymo- 
logy. Why need we do this, when they have 
unitedly said, we must determine its sense 
from its use ? When we have met it there- 
fore, our inquiry has been, does the scope of the 
subject require us to understand it as endless? 
And such I consider is the question which 
claims our attention in this discussion. Do 
not misunderstand me — I fear nothing from an 
inquiry into the etymology of aion. 

You say, that the best critics, who have 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 25 



written on the subject, teach that the etymo- 
logical meaning of axon is endless. To test this 
remark, let us appeal to critics. Phavorinus 
says, it means, life, existence, eternity. Grove 
defines it thus: eternity; an age, life; dura- 
tion or continuance of time; a period; a revo- 
lution of ages; a dispensation of Providence; 
ihis world, or life; tke world or life to come. 
Parkkurst defines it thus: duration or con- 
tinuance of time, but with great variety. He 
then ^ives seven senses in which it is used, two 
signifying eternity and five a limited period. 
Jones is equally as favorable; he says, it means, 
everlasting age — eternity— eis ton aiona, fore- 
ver — a period of time — age, life, the present 
world — the Jewish dispensation. Donnegan 
savs: time; a space of time; life time, Odyss. 
5.' 152, and 160. life, llliad. "22. 58. Hes. 
Sent. 331. the ordinary period of man's life, 
Homer and Pindar frequently the age of man, 
man's estate, Iliad. 24. 725., a long period of 
time — eternity. Schweiihaeirser defines it thus: 
CBVum, vita, age, life. Valpey defines it, age, 
length of time. Hi neks 3 defines it, a period of 
time, life, an age, the world, eternity; same as 
latin a3vum 3 which was formed from it, by 
means of the digamma. Hedericus says, it 
means, cEvum, csternitas, or age, eternity. Pic- 
kering gives the definition thus: an age, a long 
period of time, indefinite duration, time whether 
longer or shorter, past, present or future. — 
Schrevilius gives the following: cevum, mun- 
dus, scBCidum, vita, or age, world, life. 

Such is the testimony of Lexicographers; 
and it should fill you with shame at your par- 
tial quotations. From your article one would 
4 



26 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



infer, that aion invariably signifies eternity, 
when in fact, this is only one among six or seven 
senses. Now why this shuffling? Why not 
give the whole truth? For one, I like the 
whole story, let it cut where it may — I crave 
nothing from your good graces in this matter. 

If we go hack to the derivation of aion, we 
shall find your position still less tenable. It is 
formed from aei, and on. 

On signifies being, but does not fix its dura- 
tion. It is from eimi, to be — aei is from a in- 
ensitive, and eo, to be — a serves to augment the 
signification of eo, and has the force of very. — 
Jlei then, signifies a very long period, and as 
on adds nothing to it, time indefinite, or a very 
long time, is the etymological meaning of aion. 
Rose, in his Parkhurst, says: aei signifies, 1. 
always; as in Acts vii. 51. "Ye do always re- 
sist the Holy Ghost; 55 2 Cor. vi. 10. "As sor- 
rowful yet always rejoicing. 55 2. Always, ever, 
in a restrained sense; as in Mark xv. 8. "And 
the multitude desired him to do as he had ever 
done unto them. 55 3. Very frequently , contin- 
ually, as in 2 Cor. iv. 11. "For we which live 
are always delivered unto death; 55 2 Pet. i. 12. 
"to put always in remembrance 55 &c. In all 
these instances aei is used in a limited sense. 
How then can aion mean endless, when it de- 
rives Us signification from aei? 

Thus, Dear Sir, we see, that according to 
the etymology of aion, its "grammatical mean- 
ing 55 is time indefinite or time to be determined 
by the connexion in which it stands. It is pro- 
per therefore to say, the everlasting God and 
the everlasting hills ; for aion is one of those 
w r ords, which according to its ety mology, may 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



27 



be used in a variety of senses. Dr. Clarke then 
never expressed a greater error, than when he 
said, "there is no word which more forcibly 
points out the grand characteristic of eternity," 
" that endless is its grammatical meaning," 
"and that all others are accommodated," Its 
grammatical meaning is time indefinite or a 
very long time, as we have seen, not however, 
by quoting one word from Grove, and one from 
Parkhurst, but by giving their definitions in 
full, and by tracing its derivation. Hence 
the propriety of its various usage. 

Your classification of the different senses and 
forms of aion, will enable me to present, what 
I wish to say on these, in a few words. 

1. You say, it is 27 times rendered " this 
world," "the world," and "that world," and 
in all cases, is used in a limited sense. Now, 
as these passages speak of different aions, those 
past and those to come, I ask, if this usage is 
not proof against you? How could a word, 
strictly endless in its meaning, be thus various 
ly used? You say in these 27 times, it is used 
metaphorically; but this is an assertion without 
proofs and against fact. 

2. You say aion occurs 36 times in the sin- 
gular, where it is used, to signify endless ; and 
is rendered forever, never, &c. Let us test this 
position. Take the phrases, since the world 
began; from the beginning of the world; while 
the world standeth. Can we speak of the be- 
ginning of eternity, and of a period before its 
beginning? And is it correct to say, while 
eternity standeth? Such language is absurd in 
the highest sense, and yet you think it divine. 
Many of the 36 times, in which you say the sig- 



28 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



nification is endless, are as evidently limited, 
as the instances noticed. How many eternities 
do you imagine there are? Perhaps we agree 
respecting the deration of misery; for if eterni- 
ty began, it may end — so that punishment may 
last through eternity, and yet'not be endless ! 
It should be remembered, that under this head, 
you find three texts, which teach endless wo ! 
3. You say that aion is used IS times in the plu- 
ral and 6 of these are in a limited figurative sense. 
Figurative ! It is easy to make assertions. But 
I deny that when Paul spoke of the ends of the 
aions, he spoke figuratively. I also deny that 
he spoke thus, when he said, "that in the ages 
to come, he might show the riches of his grace;' 5 
"but now once in the end of the world, hath he 
appeared," &c. But you must call these figu- 
rative, or admit that there are eternities, and 
that they will end, yea, have ended already. 

4. Under this head, you say, that aion is used 
in the plural form, and in an endless sense, in 
12 places. But what meaneth the following: 
From the beginning of the (motion, eterniies) 
world ! Besides, why did Paul, to the Col. 
speak of a mystery which had been hid from 
ages (aionon, eternities) and from generations ? 
Are there past eternities ? And why does Paul 
connect with ages, generations? Does not this 
show, that he used aion, in a limited sense 
And I would ask too, if the word in the singu- 
lar means endless, how it could be used in the 
plural? 

. 5. Let us briefly consider the double form of 
aion. In this you say, it occurs 23 times, and 
invariably means endless. But the question 
arises, if you have rightly defined aion, how? 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 29 

the inspired writers could properly say , forever 
and ever? According to your views, it is eter 
nity and eternity. Here then is an insur- 
mountable objection to your definition ofaion. 

The three instances under this head, which 
you say teach endless woe, carry with them a 
refutation of such an idea; for in all three, the 
phrase, day and night, is coupled with forever 
and ever. W ill time be measured in eternity 
by days and nights? Besides, this is not the 
day, to adduce texts from Revelations to prove 
a disputed doctrine. If Dr. Clarke could not 
explain the book, will you attempt it? 

Here I wish the reader to observe, that you 
have produced only six instances, in which you 
say aion is applied to punishment, and three of 
these, are in the book of Revelations ! What a 
weight of proof! 

I deny, that aion is oftener used in an unli- 
mited, than a limited sense, Simpson, in his 
essay on future punishment, says, that in se- 
venty cases out of the hundred, it is limited. 

Your position respecting' eis governing aion, 
is utterly groundless, according to your own 
classification of aion, I have not looked the 
Greek Testament through, but 1 have found the 
following instances, where eis does not govern 
aion, in which you say it means endless. Maik 
x. 30; Luke xviii. 30; John ix. 32; Acts xv. 
IS; Eph. iii. 9—11—21; Col. i. 26. 

If we turn to the Greek translation of the 
Old Testament, we find eis often governing 
aion, when used in a limited sense. In Exod. 
xxi. 6. speaking of a slave it says, he shall 
serve eis ton aiona, forever. Eccles. i. 4. One 
generation passeth away and another cometh ; 



30 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



but the earth ahiJeth eis ton aiona, forever, not 
surely to eternity. 

The same is true of the New Testament. — 
John vili. 35. The servant abideth not in the 
house eis ton aiona, forever; the son abideth 
eis ton aiona, forever. As the slave served 
only six years, he is said not to abide forever. 
See John xiv. 16. 

In the light of these facts, what am I to 
thinK of your position respecting eis? Shall I 
say, it is one, which, every scholar would des- 
pise? Or shall I say, you took it, to deceive 
the unlearned? To your question, "what an 
unprejudiced man must conclude respecting 
eis, 35 I answer, that your statement concerning 
it, was entirely false. Your appeal to Greek 
scholars, will avail nothing, unless they can 
read with your glasses. 

I will close by asking, if axon means endless, 
why were eti and epekeina added in the follow- 
ing places? Exod. xv. 18. "The Lord shall 
reign," ton aiona, kai ep* aiona, kai eti from 
aeon to aeon, and further. Dan. xii. 3. 
"And they that turn many to righteousness, as 
the stars/ 5 eis tons aionas, kai eti, through the 
(Bons, akd further. Mich. iv. 5. "And 
we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God, 55 
eis ton aiona, kai epekeina, through the ceon 

AND BEYOND IT. 

To denounce me as an ignorant impostor will 
not be a satisfactory answer. 

As I have shown that aion is no proof of end- 
less punishment, you must rest the argument 
of y our six texts on some other point, or give 
them up. i am, dear sir, yours, 

In the bonds of Christ, 

Otis A. Skinner. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



SI 



LETTER NO. III. 

Batimore, Nov. 5,1834. 

To Rev. Otis A. Skinner: 

Dear Sir — Agreeably to my promise I has- 
ten lo send you some remarks on the adjective 
aionios, commonly translated eternal. This 
word according to Park hurst, is derived from 
the noun axon and signifies eternal, or time, 
without end. There is no word, perhaps, in all 
the sacred writings, more unfavorable to the 
doctrine of Universalists than the word aioniosj 
though we are frequently told, it is applied to 
temporal things, and, consequently cannot 
prove the punishment of the wicked to be eter- 
nal, or endless. Now, in order to show the 
reader that the word is not applied to temporal 
things, in any instance, in all the inspired writ- 
ings, I shall refer to all the places where it oc- 
curs. I am not able to find, so much as one 
place in the New Testament, where this word 
has a limited signification, and does not mean 
endless duration. It occurs seventy-one times 
in the New Testament; and is forty-one times 
translated "eternal" twenty-six times "ever- 
lasting " twice "before the world began" once 
"since the world began/' and once "for ever." 
It is the common adjective employed by the 
writers of the New Testament to teach us what 
is absolutely eternal. This will be manifest to 
any one that will pay strict attention to the use 
that is made of it, in all the places where it oc- 
curs. It is forty -four times employed to express 



32 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



the endless duration of the life of the redeemed. I 
suppose no Universalist will deny that the. life 
of the righteous is eternal, or wifl say the word 
has not an endless signification in this applica- 
tion of it. The following arc the places where 
aionios is thus used:— Matt. xix. 16, 29; xxv. 
46; Mark x. 17, SO; Luke x. 25; xviii. 18, 30; 
John iii. 15, 16, 36; iv. 14, 36; v. 24, 39; vi; 
27, 40, 47, 54, 68; x. 28; xii. 25, 50; xvii. 2, 3; 
Acts xiii. 46, 48; Rom ii. 7; v 21; vi. 22, 23. 
Gal. vi. 8; 1 Tim. i. 16; vi. 12, 19; Tit. i. 2; 
iii. 7; 1 John i. 2; ii. 25; iii. 15; v. 11, 13, 20. 
Jud. 21. The word aionios is three times ap- 
plied to the purpose of God, as I understand it, 
and, of course, must mean endless duration; as 

1 suppose no Univsrsalist will say the divine 
purpose is changeable, or fluctuating in its na- 
ture; 2 Tim. i. 9; Tit. i. 2; Rom. xvi. 25. 
The word is three times employed to express 
the endless duration of the glory of the saints. 
There can he no dispute concerning the mean- 
ing of the word here, as all christians admit 
the glory of heaven to be eternal; 2 Cor. iv. 17; 

2 Tim. ii. 10; 1 Pel. v. 10. Thus we see the 
word in fifty instances must, unquestionably, 
be understood as having an unlimited significa- 
tion; as no one denies the endless duration of 
God's purpose, or the saints glory and happi- 
ness. 

But let us see how aionios is applied in the 
remaining twenty-one places The best way 
to ascertain this point is, to quote the phrases 
where the word is used. Thus we read: — 
c ^The everlasting (aionicm) God." Rom. xvi. 
26. "The eternal (aioniou) Spirit." Oeb. ix. 
14. "To whom be honour and power everlast- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



33 



iag' ? (amnion.) 1 Tim. vi. 16. "The blood 
of the everlasting (aioniou) covenant. 55 Heb. 
xiii. 20. " Eternal (aionion) redemption. 55 
Heb. ix. 12. Eternal (aimdou) salvation.' 5 
Heb. v. 9. " Everlasting (aionion) Gospel. 55 
Rev. xiv. 6. "The everlasting (.aionion) king- 
dom of our Lord.' 5 2 Pet. i. 11. "The 'prom- 
ise of eternal (jaioniou) inheritance. 55 Heb. ix. 
15. CC A house not made with hands, eternal 
(aionion) in the heavens. 55 2 Cor. v. 1. "They 
may receive you into everlasting- (aionious) ha- 
bitations. 55 Luke xvi. 9. "Hath given us 
everlasting (aiomoii) consolation. 55 2 Thes. ii. 
The word aionios is used in Phil. 15 to ex- 
press the duration of that brotherly affection 
which ought to exist among all true Christians. 
And it is once used in 2 Cor. iv. 18, to desig- 
nate the endless duration of ail invisible objects. 
In these fourteen cases, it cannot be denied that, 
the word has an unlimited signification. For 1 
presume, no christian will say the existence of 
God, his Spirit, his Glory, his Honor, his Pow- 
er, or his Kingdom will ever come to an end. 
Nor will any Universal ist take it upon him to 
affirm that, "The covenant of prace, 55 "The 
consolation of the righteous, 55 "The inheritence 
of saints, 55 "The house in the heavens, 55 or 
"The habitation of glorified spirits, 55 will, at 
any future period come to an end; so as to have 
no existence. Hence we have fourteen cases to 
add to the fifty, which makes sixty-four, leav- 
ing only set-en, of all the places in the New 
Testament. 

Now, the Greek adjective aionios occurs se- 
venty-one times only in the inspired writings. 
It is sixty-four times applied to objects which 



34 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



are eternal in their nature, and, consequently, 
unquestionably have an unlimited signification. 
It is seven times employed to point out the in- 
terminable duration of future punishment. I 
shall cite all the phrases where the word is thus 
applied, that the reader may examine the mat- 
ter for himself, and form his own conclusions. — 
They are as follow: — "Everlasting (aioniori) 
fire." Matt, xviii. 8. "Everlasting (aionion) 
fire." Matt. xxv. 41. "Everlasting (aionion) 
punishment." Matt. xxv. 46. "Eternal (ato- 
niou) damnation." Mark . iii. 29. "Everlast- 
ing (oionion) destruction." 2 Thes. i. 9. "E- 
ternal (aioniou) judgment." Heb. vi. 2. "Eter- 
nal ^aioniou) fire." Jude 7. I believe the ge- 
nerality of well informed Universalists admit 
that, the future punishment of the wicked is 
intended in all these places ; however, we may 
make a remark or two on each of them, in or- 
der to set the subject in a more luminous point 
of view. 

With regard to the text in Matt, xviii. 8, it 
may be observed that, if our Lord's admonitions 
in the eighth and preceding verse, be properly 
considered,"it must be manifest that, he intend- 
ed future punishment by the expressions under 
consideration. And, as Dr. Chauncy, an emi- 
nent Universalist, late of Boston, admits that 
aionlos in this place relates to tie future pun- 
ishment of the wicked, it is unnecessary to 
say any thing more on the subject- 

In order to set Matt. xxv. 41, in a proper 
point of light, it is necessary to remark that the 
paragraph, from the commencement of the 31 
verse to the end of the chapter, is not a parable, 
as the Universalists generally hold, but a pro- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



35 



phelic description of the day of Judgment 

This is manifest from the following considera- 
tions. 1. We have no indication, directly or 
indirectly, in any part of the chapter, that this 
paragraph is a parable. 2. The true characte- 
ristic of a parable, which is a continuation of 
metaphors, is wanting in this passage; 3. Se- 
veral phrases in the paragraph cannot be ap- 
plied to any thing but ihe day of judgment, 
without doing violence In the passage. To u hat 
■circums iance but the last day could the follow- 
ing expressions relate? "The Son of man shall 
come in his glory " — "AH the holy angels with 
him, "Before him shall be gathered all na- 
tioni" "Inherit the kingdom prepared jbi you 
from ihe foundation of ihe world." If any one 
will have the goodness to tell me, what time, 
besides the day of judgment ' c all nations 73 shall 
be gathered before Christ on his throne, i am 
ready to give up the argument concerning this 
text, but if this is no! clone I must hold to the 
obvious meaning of the passage. 4. The best, 
and most learned commentators that I have 
consulted on this passage, refer it to the future 
judgment of the great day. j)r. Chauncy says 
the word in this passage relates to the punish- 
ment of sinners. From all these considerations 
I am induced to believe firmly that aionios, in 
this place, must he taken to express the endless 
punishment of the damned in a future state of 
existence. 

All the above arguments will apply with 
equal force, to the use of the word in the 46 
verse, so that nothing further need be added. 

The passage in Mark iii. 29, needs no illus- 
tration. Nothing in all the world can be clear- 



36 THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION. 



^er, or more definite, as it stands without note 
or comment. The endless punishment of the 
transgressor is expressed two ways, by two 
different forms of speech. 1. Negatively, "hath 
never forgiveness. 35 2. Positively, " eternal 
damnation. " This I conceive to be amply suf- 
ficient to satisfy any reasonable man. 

Concerning' the passage in 2 Thes. i. 9, I 
must say that, I can see no propriety in apply- 
ing it to the destruction of Jerusalem by the 
JRoman army. When I consider the general 
design of the epistle, the phraseology contain- 
ed in it, atid various other circumstances con- 
nected with the people to whom it was written, 
I must say that, truth obliges me to apply the 
coming of Christ, therein mentioned, to the day 
of judgment, and not to an) partial, or local ex- 
ecution of Divjne justice whatever. Therefore 
I must consider aionios, in this place, as intend- 
ed, by the Apostle, to signify the endless pun- 
ishment ot the ungodly. Dr. Chauncy admits 
that the word is so applied in this place. 

The phrase "eternal judgment* in Heh vi. 
2, cannot be applied, wiih any show of proprie- 
ty, to any thing but the future punishment of 
the wicked. This is evident from two consid- 
erations. 1. The ojder in which the phrase is 
placed, i. e. after "the resurrection of the dead" 
is mentioned. There is a beautiful gradation 
observable in the enumeration of the several 
particulars mentioned in these verses. We 
have them mentioned in the order, in which 
they are experienced by christians, as follows: — 
repentence, faith, baptism, laying on of hands, 
resurrection of the dead, and lastly, eternal 
judgment. 2. The original word krima, here 



THEOLOGICAL- DISCUSSION* 37 

translated "judgment," is rendered "damna- 
tion" in Matt, xxiii* 14; Rom. iii. 8; xiii. 2; 
1 Cor. xi. 29, 1. Tim. v. 12; 2 Pet. ii. 3. And 
"condemnation" in Luke, xxiii. 40; Rom. v. 16; 
1 Tim. iii. 6, So that if we were to read it in 
Heb. vL 2. as it is translated in several other 
places of scripture, it would be "eternal damna- 
tion," or "eternal condemnation." Consequent- 
ly, no doubt can remain, for a moment, on the 
mind of any unprejudiced scholar, but that the 
word aionion, in this place, was intended to de- 
note the endless punishment of the wicked. 

In Jude 7, we have the inhabitants of Sodom 
and Gomorrah described by a figure of speech 
(i. e. the cities put for their inhabitants) as giv- 
ing themselves up to the most abominable crimes 
ever practised by man. And in the same verse, 
the punishment consequent on such conduct is 
said to be "the vengeance of eternal fire;" that 
is, the Sodomites are now suffering the ven- 
geance of eternal fire. This was declared, or 
made manifest for the purpose of detering others 
from the commission of such crimes, that they 
might escape the interminable punishment due 
to such egregious transgressions. 

The common scripture term used to express 
endless duration is aionios. This is as clear as 
language can make it,, in 2 Corinthians iv. 17* 
18, where theilpostle says,, "f or our light af- 
fliction which is but for a moment, shall work 
out for us a far more exceeding and eternal 
weight of glory : while we look not at the things, 
which are seen, but at the things which are not 
seen ; for the things which are seen are tempo- 
ral (proskair a) or for a time ; but the things 
which are not seen are eternal (aioniaY** 
6 



38 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

Here the Apostle twice uses the word aiont- 
os in express oppostion to other words that sig- 
nify a limited duration. He contrasts the af- 
fliction of the present life with the glory in the 
life to come ; the one is light , the other has a 
weight beyond excess ; the one is but for a mo- 
ment compared with the eternal duration of the 
other. Then he draws a general contrast be- 
tween the visible things of this world and the 
invisible things of the world to come ; the for- 
mer are for a time, that is, till the day of judg- 
ment ; the latter are not for a time, but eternal. 

Now, sir, as the Apostle used this word in 
its proper signification in the text just quoted,, 
is it not likely, to say the least, that he used it 
in" the same sense in 2 T!»es. i. 9. especially 
when we take into account the incontrovertible- 
rule that, words are always to be understood 
in their proper signification, unless restricted by 
some word in the sentence where they occur : 
no such restriction is to be found in the passage 
in question ; therefore, by every rule of sound 
criticism we are bound to believe that, the A- 
postle meant the endless destruction of the 
wicked. Get over this conclusion the best way 
you can. 

I shall conclude this paper with a quotation, 
almost verbatim from Dr. D wight, used on a 
similar occasion. "Now let me ask, whether 
a man, even of moderate understanding, could 
be supposed to write with scrupulous integrity 
a system of theology, and employ this term 
sixty-four times to denote endless duration, and 
seven times to denote that which was infinitely 
different, without giving any notice of its re- 
stricted meaning, while the subject to which it 



THEOLOGICAL, DISCUSSION. 39 



is applied is of .immeasurable importance to 
those for whom he wrote. If such a man can- 
not be supposed thus to use language, nor vindi- 
cate it when used in this manner, can such con- 
duct be attributed safely to the spirit of God?' 1 
I am yours, &c 

Joseph McKee. 



LETTER No. III. 



To Rev. Joseph McKee : 

Dear Sir — It is universally admitted that no 
adjective can signify more than the noun from 
which it is formed. All the arguments there- 
fore which I have brought to prove the limita- 
tion of aion, may be applied with equal propii- 
ety to ahnios ; for if the former is limited, the 
latter must be. Hence Donnegan defines it; 
of long duration ; eternal — lasting; permanent. 
Jones defines it — everlasting, ancient. Park- 
hurst defines it — eternal, having neither begin- 
ning nor end, duration of the world, ages of the 
world, the times since the beginning of existence. 
Cruden defines it the same as awn. Hincks 
says, it is eternal, the time since the beginning 
of the world. Here we again discover your 
partial quotations from Lexicographers. VVhy 
not give the whole truth ? Do you fear the 
light) 

Such being the meaning, of aionios, we can see 
no difficulty whatever in the word. As it is used 
in a variety of senses, its signification, like aion, 



40 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



must be determined by its use. But you say, 
there is not an instance where it is limited or 
applied to things temporal. This, dear sir, was 
an unguarded remark, and shows a determina- 
tion to bend every passage where it occurs tc 
your use. The position however, shall be fully 
tested before we close. 

You say "aionios is forty-four times used to 
^express the durai ion of the life of the righteous. 35 
Now I can hardly believe you serious in this; 
for it seems tha>t you cannot have read the New 
Testament without discovering, that the phrase, 
^zoen aionion^) eternal life, is a general term, 
oised to denote the happiness enjoyed in this 
world, through faith in Christ, and often the 
happiness of the christians after the close of the 
old dispensation. 1 will not assert that this is 
the case with all your forty-four instances, but 
I will say, these are the general senses of the 
phrase. That I am right is evident from the 
Ibl low in g con s i d erat io n s : 

1. Believers are represented as having eter- 
nal life. He that believeth on the Son hath 
everlasting life, John 3. 36 He that heareth 
my word and believeth on him that sent me hath 
everlasting life, John 5. 24. Verily I say un- 
to you, he that, believeth on me, hath everlast- 
ing life, John 6. 47... See also verse 54, chap. x. 
28; xii. 50; xvii. 3- Aionios is the adjective 
in all these cases ; and as you admit that believ- 
ers can fall from grace, the word can be no 
proof of the endless duration of tbe life. 

2. Having eternal life and entering into eter- 
nal life are synonamous with seeing and enter- 
ing the kingdom of Christ. Compare Matt. 1 
xix. 16, with verses 23 and 24, where having 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 41 



eternal life is used as synonamous with entering 
fChrist's kingdom. Now all admit that to en- 
ter this kingdom, is to become a disciple of Je- 
sus, to believe his doctrine and imitate his ex- 
ample. See Matt. iii. 2.; iv. 17; xii. 28; xxh 
43. Luke ix- 27; xxi. 16. where kingdom of 
God signifies the Church or reign of Christ. — 
Hence the Savior said in reference to the young 
man, who asked what he should do to inherit 
eternal life, "how hardly shall a rich man enter 
the kingdom of heaven;" meaning, how difficult 
it is for the rich to become christians. 

3. The phrase everlasting life, occurs but 
once in the Old Testament ; and there (Dan. 
12. 2.) it is set in contrast with the shame and 
contempt which the Jews were to experience for 
their rejection of Christ- Now as the shame 
was to be experienced on earth, why might not 
the life be here enjoyed? The contrast would 
be wrong, if such were not the case. 

4. Eternal life is a life to which some were 
ordained. "And as many as were ordained to 
eternal life, believed' 3 Acts. xiii. 48. Now if 
eternal life, here signifies endless blessedness, 
you must admit the old doctrine of election, 
Armenians have uniformly explained such texts 
as refering to a temporary election in this life, 
for a specific purpose. Are you prepared to 
deny their views, and to reconcile with good- 
ness and wisdom, an arbitrary partial election 
to endless life? 

5. If everlasting life, means endless happi- 
ness, why did Jesus, after saying, "he gave his 
sheep eternal life," add, "and they shall never 
perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my 
Stand?" These additional remarks, show, that 



42 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



eternal life was used simply to express the life 
of faith; for it would be useless and absurd to 
say of a soul after it was perfected in glory, it 
shall never perish, and none shall pluck it from 
the hand of Christ. 

For the five foregoing reasons, I must dis- 
sent entirely, from your position, that aionios 
* f is forty-four times used to express the endless 
duration of the life of the redeemed. 55 It is an 
assumption sustained by no proof, but popular 
prejudice. You must therefore reckon again 
to make out your forty-four instances, where 
aionios is admitted by all to be endless. Uni- 
versalists admit nothing of the kind. 

You say that aionion is three times applied 
to God's purpose. But such is not the fact. 
The literal meaning of 2 Tim. 1. 9. is "accord- 
ing to his own purpose and grace, which was 
given us in Christ Jesus, before the aionion 
times-" Now if aionion here means eternity, 
this purpose was formed before eternity; and 
as this cannot be, aionion is here used in a li- 
mited sense to denote what God purposed be- 
fore the commencement of time. Besides, noth- 
ing is said of an aionion purpose. The other 
two instances are the same, Here then are 
three more cases to be deducted from your cal- 
culations. What an absurdity to say before 
eternity ! 

On the three instances in which you say 
aionios refers to the endless glory of the saints > 
I will make no remarks; for I can see no bear- 
ing they can have on this discussion. That 
aionios is sometimes used in an unlimited sense 
we admit. But conceding these, your fifty in- 
stances are cut down to a small number. In 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



43 



what light now does your remark appear, that 
aionios is never used in a limited sense? 

There remain of the seventy -one places where 
aionios occurs, but twenty-one to be consider- 
ed. As fourteen of these have no reference to 
punishment, I will pass them by simply asking 

1, If any thing; more can be intended by the 
phrase, everlasting Gospel, than that the Gos- 
pel should be preached to the end of time, and 
that it should never be succeeded by another? 

2. Can people in this world, be said to have end- 
less consolation ? And does not the absurdity of 
this idea, show, that everlasting consolation sim 
ply means, the great and permanent consolation 
of christians ? Remember — they had this ever- 
lasting consolation, and that christians can fall 
from grace. 3. How can Chrises kingdom be 
called endless,whenhe says, he shall deliver it up 
to the Father? See 1 Cor. xv- 4. By what au- 
thority do you refer the phrase everlasting ha- 
bitations to the future world ? Have men the 
control of the kingdom of endless blessedness? 
Can they admit and refuse whom they please? 
5. Onesimus was a fellow laborer with Phile- 
mon, and the son of Paul in the faith. For a 
time, he departed from Philemon, but returned 
by the advice of Paul. Hence it is said; " he 
departed for a season, that Philemon should 
receive him forever" But can any thing more 
be intended, than that they should continue 
without interruption fellow laborers? Surely 
in this instance aionios, at most, can only mean 
the life of man. Thus we have five cases to 
take from your fourteen. 

We will now examine your seven texts, 
where aionios is applied to punishmsnt Your 



44 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



remark that the best informed Universalisis 
generally refer these to future punishment, is 
another proofof your imperfect knowledge of 
cu * faith. 

1, On Matt, xviii. 8. I will only ask 1. What 
can Christ mean by entering life maimed? 2, 
What can he mean by being cast into fire with 
two hands and two eyes? 3. Should you say he 
speaks figuratively, and means by being maim- 
ed separated from his friends, I would ask, how 
entering heaven, without friends, could be called 
entering maimed? According to this every chris- 
tian goes to heaven maimed. But here is a dif- 
ficulty; for this would make sinners go to hell 
maimed, inasmuch as they would leave friends 
behind. 4. When Jesus says it were better to 
be drowned in the depth of the sea, than to of- 
fend one of these little ones (v. 6.) does he not 
refer to the same punishment as that in v. 8? 
These questions show that Jesus was merely 
speaking of the opposition to his cause,, of the 
importance of believing in him, even if it dis- 
pleased connexions, and of the judgment that 
would come on the offenders. They had bet - 
ter enter his kingdom without friends, and a- 
gainst their will, than to be destroyed with thero. 
Fire is a common figure to express the tem- 
poral punishments to come on the Jews. See 
Matt. 3. 10; xiii. 42; xxv. 41; vii. 9. Eis to 
pur to aionion or everlasting fire then, can be 
no proof of endless misery ; for it is seen to re- 
fer to a particular judgment upon the Jews. 

What Dr. Chauncy's notions have to do with 
this or any other text, as it respects our discus- 
sion I am unable to conceive. I hope therefore 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 45 



in future, you will give us your reasons, and 
not the unsupported opinions of other men. 

2 & 3. Let us now consider Malt. xxv. 41, and 
on to end of the chap. This you say is not a par- 
able, 1. Because there is no indication of it. 
That is easily said, hut what does v. 33. mean? 
"He will set the sheep on the right and the goats 
on the left." Now if you are correct, we need 
discuss the subject no further; for it refers not 
to men, but to sheep and goats. The sheep shall 
go into life eternal, and the goats into everlast- 
ing punishment. The sheep fed the hungry, 
clothed the naked, &c while the goats were 
wanting in these kind offices. A kingdom was 
prepared for the sheep; but the goats were to 
be penned with the devil. 

Again; you say many phrases in this scripture, 
such as come in his glory — holy angels — all na- 
fions,&c. can only he applied to a general judg- 
ment See Matt. xvi. 28. where Christ was to 
come in the glory of his Father with his angels 
to reward every man according to his work, be- 
fore those to whom he spoke, tasted death. See 
also Matt. 24. 30—34. where it is said, all the 
tribes of the earth should mourn; Christ should 
come in the clouds of heaven with power and 
great glory; send out his angels to gather his 
elect from one end of Heaven to the other; and 
all before the generation then living passed a- 
way. But you knew all this before ; you were 
not ignorant of our views on this subject; for 
you have read my sermon on Matt. 25. 31 — 46. 
Why then bring up these old arguments, which 
we have refuted, without replying to what we 
have Jsaid ? You lay great stress upon the 
phrase all nations; but is there more difficulty 



46 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



in understanding; that, than the phrases, reward* 
every man — all the tribes of the earth shall mourn 
-—gather his elect from one end of heaven to the 
other ? You think there is a difficulty in the 
phrase, "inherit the kingdom prepared for you 
from the foundation of the world." But did not 
the disciples have a kingdom; and one too pre- 
pared for them? This dear sir, is in favor of 
our views. Besides, Jesus told his disciples that 
he would appoint to them a kingdom, as his 
Father had appointed one to him. Thus eve- 
ry circumstance connected with this scripture, 
shows, that aionios is limited. What you say 
about Chauncy, and the best of commentators is 
entirely foreign from the question. Further, it 
is not true, for Pearce and Cappe explain the 
subject a<? universalists do. 

4. Mark iii. 29. next claims our attention. 
Here you find two forms of speech, negative and 
positive, which teach endless misery. Now I 
consider this uncandid ; for as you read the 
Greek, you must have known that the original 
will bear no such construction. Jlion and aionios 
both occur in this text, but only one (aionios) is 
translated. According to the original, it reads, 
"but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy 
Ghost, hath not forgiveness unto (aioni) the age> 
but is obnoxious to the aionion judgment. This 
destroys your negative argument. It is not an 
unlimited, but a limited negative. Now as we 
must believe, that Mark uses aion in the same 
sense as Matthew, we feel justified in saying, 
unto the aion, means unto the christian aion or dis- 
pensation. This accords with Matthew — neither 
in this age (the Jewish) neither in the age to 
come, (the christian.) Hence the damnation 



THEOLOGICAL DISCU ION. 



47 



©f which Mark speaks, is under the new dispen- 
sation. This he calls aionlon. Jlionion remem- 
ber, is formed from aion; and as aion is used to 
signify age, an cdonion damnation~mu$t be the 
damnation of an age. Such was the damnation 
of those, who sinned against the Holy Ghost. 
According to this explanation Matthew and 
Mark agree. 

One word as to this sin. To justify your in- 
terpretation, it would be necessary to prove, 
that the sin was infinite ; otherwise it would not 
deserve an endless punishment. But this text 
refutes the idea, that sin is infinite; and shows, 
that the common method of proving its infinity 
is incorrect. For as the sin against the Holy 
Ghost, was greater than against the Son of man, 
because committed against greater light, sin 
takes its magnitude from the knowlege of the 
sinner, and not from the greatness oi God. — 
Hence it cannot be infinite; and if so, its pun- 
ishment must be limited. 

5. I regard your manner of alluding to 2 
Thess. 1. 9. as virtually giving up the text. It 
is true you have offered a few remarks expres- 
sive of your opinion, but not a word have you 
said respecting my reply to the propositions of 
your first letter on the text. Neither have you 
answered my four questions; and until this is 
done, I shall consider that the subject, as it res- 
pects 2 Thess. 1. 9. is settled, Dr. Chauncy's 
admission is nothing. 

6. Heb. vi. 2. is your next proof text. To 
understand this we must consider the verse pre- 
ceeding .1 suppose you will admit, that Clarke 
is correct in saying, C( leaving the principles of 
the doctrine of Christ/ 5 might be rendered, ' c the 



48 



THEOLOGICAL, DISCUSSION. 



.discourse of the beginning of Christ, as in the 
jnargin." In the previous chapter, much is 
said respecting Christ and his priesthood ; and 
the Hebrews are charged with being ignorant 
,of what was contained in the Old Testament, 
or oracles of God concerning it. See Psal. ex. 
and Isai. liii. where the order and duration of 
Christ's priesthood is described. Their igno- 
rance of this, caused the Apostle to call them 
Jbabes. 

The 6th .chap, commmences : Leaving the 
.discourse of the beginning of Christ, let us go 
on to perfection; that is, let us not stop at what 
David and Isai. have said about Christ, but let 
us go on to perfection in the Christian doctrines. 
Suppose by principles, the leading doctrines of 
the Gospel are intended ; how could we leave 
>these, and go on to perfection? It is abiding 
by these., that perfects the Christian character. 
Hence Paul not only exhorts them to leave or 
waive what had bden said respecting the genea^ 
Jogy and priesthood of Christ, but not to lay 
again the foundation of repentance, of faith, 
baptism, &c. Here he mentions other doctrines, 
peculiar to the Jews, besides those respecting 
Christ, to which they must not return. That 
I am right, is evident from verses 4, 5, 6, where 
Paul speaks of apostacy and the awful conse- 
quences which would result from it. The si- 
tuation then of the Hebrew christians and the 
whole discourse concerning them, justifies us in 
.our application of the 1st and 2d verses. Should 
Jhere still be doubts on this subject, they will 
be removed by considering, that all the parti- 
culars mentioned were held by .the Jews, com^ 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



49 



prehended the outlines of Judaism, and were the 
very points, to which Apostates would return. 

1. Repentance: This was a Jewish doctrine, 
as appears from Lev. xvi. 21, 22, 29, 30. 2. 
Faith towards God: this was purely Jewish; 
for under the old dispensation, faith was requir- 
ed to be in God, while under the new, it is re- 
quired to be in Christ. 3- Baptisms : He speaks 
in the plural, showing that he refers to the 
Jewish baptisms, for they are always spoken of 
in the plural; while the christian baptism is 
spoken of in the singular- Paul in Heb. 9. 10 
speaks of divers baptisms' 4. Laying on of 
hands, was a common ceremony among" the 
Jews. 5- The resurrection of the dead. In chap, 
xi. Paul refers to the raising' of the dead men- 
tioned in 1 Kings xvii. 21. 2 Kings iv. 24. And 
that this is his reference here is evident from 
the fact, that these were regarded as convinc- 
ing proofs, that Judaism was true. 6. Internal 
judgment : This was a doctrine of the Jews as 
appears from the tremendous judgments upon 
Sodom and Gomorrah, upon Pharoah and his 
host, and upon the Israelites in the wilderness. 
That the word rendered everlasting was used 
by them in a limited sense is evident from Exod. 
14. 13; Prov. 22. 28; Jer. 18. 15; Ezek. 36. 
2. To your definition of krima I have no ob- 
jection. I will only observe, it is often used to 
denote temporal judgment, as 1 Pet. 4. 17 ; 1 
Cor. 2. 29. 

Having fully proved that all the six particu- 
lars were Jewish doctrines,! will ask you to 
point out a judgment in the Old Testament 
-where endless misery is taught. Then yotj 



50 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

will do something towards proving that aionios 
•is here used in an endless sense. 

7. Jude 7, is your last text. On this I will 
only ask 1. If endless misery be here intended, 
how could Jude say, "I will put you in remem- 
brance though you once knew this? 55 How 
could they know it, for in Genesis and Zeph 
where the destruction of these cities is recorded, 
not a word is said respecting endless misery? — 
2. These cities were set forth for an example, 
suffering the vengeance, but if this ven- 
geance is beyond this world, how could they be 
set forth? These cities were destroyed by fire 
from heaven, and this, Jude calls an eternal 
fire. Surely then, it cannot be in the spiritual 
world. 3. If the people of these cities were 
sent to an endless hell, why did God hide from 
Abraham what he was about to do? If you 
say he did not, I ask why the sacred historian 
lias hidden it from us? The reason why the 
people are said to suffer is, because they, as 
well as their cities, perished by fire from hea- 
ven. 

At the conclusion of your letter not a little 
uneasiness is discovered respecting 2. Thes. i. 
9. And the argument by which you endeavor 
to redeem the text is singular as it is novel. — 

Finding nothing in the connexion to favor 
your views, and being unable to answer my 
four questions, you first assert that aionios 
is the common word for endless. That it is 
often used in this sense is admitted; but accord- 
ing to its etymology and lexicographers, I am 
justified in asserting, that wherever it means 
endless, the connexion requires it, and that of 
itself it only means continued existence. Besides, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



51 



when the inspired writers would express the 
endless felicity of heaven, they use such words 
as endless, incorrujrtible, immortal, &c. words strict- 
ly unequivocal in their meaning; and when 
aionios is used, it is under circumstances which 
show it endless. This is the case with % Cor- 
iv. 17, 18,„where temporal things are contrast- 
ed with spiritual, temporal afflictions with un- 
fading glory. Now, the very contrast, together 
with the nature of things spiritual, fc shows them 
endless, so that these determine the sense of 
aionios. Show that the connexion of 2 Thes. i. 
9, requires that aionios should be considered as 
endless, and you will gain your point. But 
this you cannot do; for if you could you would 
not have resorted to 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18, for proof. 
Therefore f by every rule of sound criticism, we 
are bound' to say aionion destruction, is not an 
endless one. 

As I have refuted all your positions respecting 
ainios, your quotation from Dwight, supposes a 
a case which does not exist. 

I intended to bring forward some arguments 
from olam, its various renderings, and its trans- 
lation by the lxx, and the use of fawn and 
aionios by the christian fathers in the second, third 
and fourth centuries, but I must defer these for 
a future letter. I am sincerely, 

Otis A> Skinner. 



THEOLOGICAL^ DISCUSSION 



LETTER NO. IV. 

Baltimore, Nov. 11, 1834 
To Rev. Otis A. Skinner: 

Dear Sir : — Ir^ consequence of a call to per- 
form some ministerial duties at some distance 
from this city, I was deprived.ofa sight of the 
second and third numbers of the Cf Pioneer" till 
a late hour last night. I have just glanced over 
them> by which I perceive that you were too 
soon elated with the idea that I had given up 
some texts because I had not noticed your ques- 
tions in my third letter. But I intend that your 
glorying in this respect shall not continue long. 
The fact is my third letter was written before 
I saw theirs/ number of your paper; and this 
is the reason I have not reviewed your remarks. 
These shall be duly attended to, if spared, in 
my next communication. For the present, I 
would say, that I shall not attempt to answer 
all the trifling and unnecessary questions that 
you may ask, which can only darken and con- 
ceal the subject at issue from the public mind. 
I want truth brought out in as short and clear 
a manner as possible. I am ready to answer 
any interrogation that may be appropriate, or 
may cast light on the present controversy. — 
This is precisely the course I wish you to pur- 
sue with me. I might ask you 500 questions 
concerning a subject, which, probably, could 
not be answered by any man living; but, would 
this be a proper reason why I should require 
you to relinquish the subject altogether?. Cer- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



53 



tainly not. In this paper, I shall attend to a 
question you ask me, in your first letter, res- 
pecting t l "»e use \ have made of the word Ge- 
henna. One would be ready to conclude, from 
reading your remarks, that [ .introduced this 
word into the present discussion ; but, those 
who may read all the letters on both sides will 
see that you first used the word ; however, as 
this is a matter of little, or no consequence, I 
shall say no more about it, but proceed to a con- 
sideration of the term, Gehenna. 

The word Gehenna is taken from the two 
Hebrew words, Ghi, a valley, and Hinn om, the 
name of a person who once possessed it. This 
valley ofHinnom lay near Jerusalem, and had 
formerly been the place of those abominable 
sacrifices, wherein, the idolatrous Jews burned 
their children aliv£ to Molech, Baal^ or the 
Sun. See the accounts of those infernal impi- 
eties recorded in 2 Kings xxiii. 10; 2 Chron. 
xxviii. 3; Jer. vii. 31,32; xix. 5, 6; xxxii. 35. 
A certain place in the valley was called Tophet 
from the Hebrew w^ord tophet, a fire-stcve, in 
which as some think, the Jews burned their 
children to Molech. Sometimes the valley it- 
self is called the valley of Tophet. Cruden 
observes that it is thought "the name of Tophet 
is given to the valley of Hinnom, because ot 
the sacrifices that were offered there to the god 
Molech, by beat of drum, which in Hebrew is 
called Toph. It was in this manner that these 
sacrifices were offered : The statue of Molech 
w r as of brass, hollow within, with its arms ex* 
tended, and stooping a little forward. They 
lighted a great fire within the statue, and ano- 
ther before it. They put upon its arms the 



54 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



child they intended to sacrifice , which sGon fell 
into the fire at the foot of the statue, putiing 
forth cries, as may easily bo imagined. To 
stifle the noise of these cries and howiings,tbey 
made a great rattling of drums, and other in- 
struments, that the spectators might not be 
moved with compassion at the clamours of these 
miserable victims. And this as they say , was 
the manner of sacrificing in Tophet." This 
valley was defiled by king Josiah, 2 King, xxiii. 
10, and made a receptacle of the filth and the 
dead carcases of the city. Worms bred in the 
carcases, in great abundance, and fires were 
kept up continually to consume them. All 
these circumstances made it a place of the ut- 
most horror and detestation to the imagination, 
so that it became a very appropriate emblem of 
hell. And the name of this place was after- 
wards frequently applied to the place of endless 
punishment, both by the Jews and our blessed 
Saviour. The term Gehenna occurs in the 
New Testament only twelve times, and is al- 
ways rendered hell; however, for the conveni- 
ence of the reader I shall cite all the words both 
in the Greek and the English. They are as 
follow : — Matt- v. 22. eis ten gehennan tou 
pur os, of hell-fire. Matt. v. 29. eis gehennan, 
into hell. Matt, v- 30. eis gehennan, into helL 
Matt x. 28. en gehenne,in hell. Matt, xviii. 9. 
eis ten gehennan tou pur vs , into hell fire. Matt, 
xxiii. 15. gehennes, hell. Matt, xxiii-33 tes. 
gehennes, hell. Mark ix. 43. eis ten gehennan, 
'into hell. Mark ix- 45. eis ten gehennan, into 
hell. Mark ix. 47. eis ten gehennan, into hell. 
Luke xii. 5. eis ten gehennan 3 into hell. Jam, 
iii. 5. tes gehennes, of hell 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



55 



Now sir, I assert once for all, and that with- 
out fear of successful contradiction, that the 
word Gehenna is used in every instance, in the 
New Testament to signify the place of endless 
punishment. My reasons for making'this de- 
claration are the following; — 

1. The Jews, to whom were committed the 
oracles of God, understood it in this sense. See 
Chald. on Is. xxxiv. 14. where mokedey olcim 
is rendered (i the Gehenna of everlasting 
fire.' 5 Tiio most learned Jews in our Saviour's 
time employed the word to signify hell, the 
place of the damned. This application of it 
may be seen in the Chaldee Targums on Ruth 
ii. 12; Ps. cxl. 12; Is. xxvi. 15; xxxiii. 14. 
And also in the Jerusalem Targum, and that 
of Jonathan Be/ ziel, on Geo. iii. 24. and 
xv. 17. 

2. Josephus, w o was one of the most learned 
Jews, and a contemporary of our Saviour, un- 
derstood the word as signifying endless punish- 
ment in a future state. When speaking of the 
transactions of the day of judgment, and parti- 
cularly of the justice of Christ on that occasion, 
he observes that, this principle will be manifest 
in (C allotting to the lovers of wicked works 
eternal punishment. To these belong the un- 
quenchable fire, and that without end, and a 
certain fiery worm never dying, and not destroy- 
ing the body, but continuing its eruption out of 
the body with never ceasing grief." Discourse 
on Hades, Whiston's Translation. I do not 
consider Josephus as an inspired writer; but, I 
regard him as a proper evidence to prove what 
were the views of the Jews in his day, regard- 
ing the application of fire and worms to the fu 

21 



5 6 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

ture punishment of the wicked. Our Saviour 
being a Jew, must have used the words as they 
were then commonly understood, otherwise, his 
language would tend rather to deceive than in- 
struct. 5 

3. Mr. Parkhurst, one of the most learned 
men that ever wrote on the or iginal scriptures, 
in his Lexicon, says that, " Gehenna tou puros, 
A Gehenna of fire, Matt. v. 22., does, in its out- 
ward and primary sense, relate to that dreadful 
doom of being burned alive in the valley of Hin- 
nom. Though this, as well as the other degrees 
of punishment mentioned in the context, must, 
as Doddridge has remarked, be ultimately re- 
ferred to the invisible world, and to the future 
vengeance of an offended God." He affirms 
that the word commonly denotes immediately 
hell, the place, ov state of the damned. 

4. The sense of all the passages where this 
word occurs in the New Testament requires 
the signification which I have affixed to it; to 
say the least, the word may be fairly understood, 
in every place, to relate to future punishment. 
In Matt. v. 22. the word may literally refer to 
the condemnation of the Sanhedrim and the fire 
in the valley at Jerusalem, but it must in a se- 
condary sense relate to endless punishment in a 
future state. The foot, hand, eye, &c. mention- 
ed in Matt, v. 29, 30; xviii. 9; Mark ix. 43, 
45, 47., are metaphorical expressions employed 
to denote such sinful propensities and practices 
as we love equally dear with those various 
members of the body. All such sins must be 
given up to ensure eternal life ; if this is not 
done, the sinner w r ith all his malevolent propen- 
sities and vile dispositions shall be cast into the 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 57 

fire of an interminable hell, where their worm 
dieth not and their fire is not quenched ! In 
Matt. x. 28. the destruction mentioned is not 
inflicted by men, but by God only; therefore, 
gehenna must, in this place, necessarily signify 
the punishment of the wicked in a future state. 
In Luke xii. 5. the casting- into Gehenna, is af- 
ter the death of the body, and the act cannot be 
performed by any but God, for which reason 
he is a pecular object of fear; hence, it is not the 
burning of a dead carcase that is intended here, 
but. the destruction of the soul in endless mise- 
ry. The phrases, "child of hell," Matt, xxiii. 
15. "damnation of hell/' Matt. v. S3, "set on 
fire of hell," Jam. iii. 6. must, undoubtedly be 
understood as relative to the world of endless 
wo. Any literal interpretation would do vio- 
lence to the passages that would be highly re- 
prehensible. 

I shall close these remarks for the present by 
making an observation in relation to Paul not 
using the word Gehenna. First. The Jews 
wore well acquainted with the word Gehenna 
and its signification. Second. The Gentiles 
were unacquainted both with the word and is 
signification. Third. Paul was the Apostle of 
. the Gentiles ,r\ot of the Jews, and on this ground 
I account for his not using the word G enema. 
Fourth. James in his epistle which was written 
"to the twelve tribes" of Jews that were scat- 
tered abroad, uses the word Gehenna, because 
they were familiarly acquainted both with the 
word and its signification. 

A few strictures on your letters may be ex- 
pected before long. Yours, sincerely, &c. 

Joseph McKee. 



58 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



LETTER NO. IV. 

Baltimore, Nov. 22, 1834. 

To Rev. Joseph McKee: 

I am unable to express my surprise, that you 
should charge me with glorying that you had 
given up some texts, and with asking trifling 
and unnecessary questions. I know that when 
faithfully wielded, the sword of truth, can de- 
molish the strong holds of error and disperse its 
advocates ; but I was not prepared to hear from 
you charges of this nature. Fear for the safety 
of a long cherished system, renders uncertain 
the powers of vision and reason; and in this 
instance it seems to have multiplied 2 Thes. i. 
9. into several texts, and changed a refusal to 
consider it, until my four propositions were an- 
swered, into shouts of victory. As it respects 
my questions, you can answer them or not — they 
will have their weight with the reader, howe- 
ver often you may denounce them as trifling 
and unnecessary. 

Believing your derivation of Gehenna cor- 
rect, I will proceed to consider your proofs for 
saying, it invaribly signifies endless punish- 
ment. 

1. The Tar gums : " Targum is a name giv- 
(\n to the Chaldee paraphrases of the books of 
the Old Testament They are called paraphra- 
ses or expositions, because they are rather 
comments and explications than literal transla- 
tions of the text. They were written in Chal- 
dee because this was better known to the Jews 
than Hebrew after the time of their captivity 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



59 



in Babylon." The most ancient of these are 
the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan. See 
Prideaux, Buck and Watson. Jahn says, the 
Targum of Onkelos was written in the third 
or second century of the christian era. That 
of Jonathan Ben Uzziel was written, he says, 
towards the close of the third century ; and the 
Jerusalem Targum is still more modern. This 
opinion of Jahn has the sanction of the most 
eminent writers. 

The Targums therefore, furnish no proof 
whatever, that Gehenna was used to signify 
endless wo, in the days of Christ. Your asser 
tion then, that the most learned Jews used Ge- 
henna in this sense, is entirely unfounded. 

2. Your quotation from Josephus is now 
universally considered the w T ork of some chris- 
tian writer of, perhaps, the second or third cen- 
tury. Josephus never uses Gehenna in those 
passages which speak of the state of the wicked 
after death. Add to this the fact, that the Jew- 
ish sects, in the days of Josephus, did not re- 
present future punishment by the emblem ot 
fire, which is the sense in which Gehenna is 
used in the Targums, and by the christian wri- 
ters of the third and fourth centuries, and you 
will see that he is against you. 

3. It is news to me, u that Parkhurst is one 
of the most learned men who ever wrote and 
as his opinion, was formed from a mistaken 
idea respecting the dates of the Targums, it 

an have but little weight with the unprejudiced 
and enlightened. At most, it is but the opinion 
of a man ; and if you have no better proof than 
this, we had better relinquish our discussion. 
As then, there is no proof that Gehenna in 
21* 



60 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

the days of Christ had acquired a signification 
different from what it had in the Old Testa- 
ment, we must go back to this to ascertain the 
sense in which it is used. Here it occurs in 
two senses, 1. For the literal valley of Hinnom 
2. As a figure to represent the temporal pun- 
ishment, that God was to bring on the Jewish 
nation. See Josh. xv. 8 ; xviii. 16 ; Neh. xi. 
30. 2 Chron. xxviii. 3 ; xxiii 6. Jer. xxxii, 
35. where it signifies the valley of Hinnom. — 
See Jer. vii. 29—34 and xix. 4 — 15. where it 
is used figuratively, to represent the destruc- 
tionof the Jewish nation. Let us observe here 
the exact language of the Prophet. He says, 
the valley shall no more be called Tophet nor 
Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter, that the 
counsel of Judah and Jerusalem shall be made 
void, that they shall fall by the sword of their 
enemies, that their carcasses shall be meat for 
fowls and beasts, and that in their siege they 
shall eat their sons and daughters, and that 
they shall bury in Tophet till there is no place 
to bury. Now this prediction had a literal ful- 
filment, at the destruction of Jerusalem, when 
six hundred thousand bodies were suffered to 
lie unburied and were meat for fowls and beasts, 
when parents feasted upon their children, their 
land became desolate and their city as Tophet. 

In connexion with this prophecy, let us con- 
sider, that in all the places where Gehenna is us- 
ed in the New Testament, it was spoken to 
Jews, who were familiar with the old Testament. 
Must they not then have understood it in the 
sense of the Old Testament? And if our Lord 
did not use it in this sense, cc did he not deceive 
rather than instruct" ? 

In Matt. x. 28, some difficulty exists in con- 



THEOLOGICAL, DISCUSSION. 61 

sequence of the translation. There is however 
the same difficulty in applying this to the fu- 
ture state, that there is Matt. v. 29, 30, for 
as the body remains in this world, it cannot be 
destroyed in the future. Now the soul was to 
be destroyed in the same hell with the body. — 
<c Destroy both soul and body in hell. 55 Gehen- 
na therefore, cannot here mean endless punish- 
ment. Having rescued this text from your 
hands, I will offer a few remarks for the reader's 
satisfaction. 

The disciples of Christ were as sheep in the 
midst of wolves ; and they were told to beware 
of men, who would deliver them up to councils, 
scourge them in synagogues, and bring them 
before governors. These however they should 
not fear ; for they could only kill or torture the 
body ; but they should fear God whose power 
is almighty. And to stimulate them to this, 
Christ describes the superintending Providence 
of Jehovah, his watchful care over them, and 
the awful punishment which would await those, 
who should through fear of men, renounce the 
Gospel. This punishment he confines to that 
age. He says, <f ye shall be hated of all nations 
for my name's sake ; but he that endureth to 
the end shall be saved. Verily ye shall not 
have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son 
of man be come." He also says, e those who 
would seek to save their lives should lose them; 
but those who would lose their lives, or have 
no fear of men, should save them. Hence the 
command, " Fear not them which kill or tor- 
ture the body, but fear him who is able to in- 
flict a punishment far more dreadful (han the 
torture of men — a punishment represented by 
22 



C2 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



that awful figure — Gehenna. The whole chap 
t8r therefore, shows that Christ was speaking 
of the judgment at the overthrow of Jerusalem; 
and that Gehenna was figurative. The judg- 
ment should come before they had gone over the 
cities of Israel. 

It only remains to consider the difficulty aris- 
ing from the translation. 1. The word kill 
(apokteino.) This must be translated to agree 
with the power of the Jews ; and as they had 
not the power of taking life, it cannot properly 
be rendered kill. They could persecute, scourge 
and deliver up to the Romans, but they could 
not kill. See John xviii. 31. where it is said, 
they had not this power. Apoktemo then, 
should be rendered to torture or afflict, which is 
nearly its sense in Romans vii. 11; 2 Cor. iii. 6. 
2. The word soul Cpsuhe.) That this means 
simply the animal life, is evident from a verse 
following (v. 39) the one under consideration, 
where it is twice so rendered. See also Mark 
iii. 4; Matt* xvi. 25, 26; Luke xvii. 28; John 
xii. 25. Giving psuhe this translation, avoids 
the absurdity of saying, God would destroy an 
immortal principle. Fear not them, who are 
only able to torture the body, but fear him, 
who is able to destroy the life and body in Ge- 
henna; that is, destroy the whole man. This 
agrees with the expression, cast the whole body 
into Gehenna. 

As Matt, xviii. 9 is a repetition of what has 
been considered, we need only remark, that it 
speaks of being cast with two eyes or the whole 
body into Gehenna. The same is true of Mark 
ix. 43, 45 and Luke xii. 5. They are repeti- 
tions of language which we have already ex- 
plained. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 63 



If we turn to Matt, xxiii. S3, we shall find 
these views confirmed: "Ye serpents ye gene- 
ration of vipers ! how can ye escape the damna- 
tion of hell?" The word hell is Gehenna; and 
that it was applied to Jews is evident from the 
vers:s preceding: <f Yc are the children of them 
that killed the Prophets. Fill ye up then the 
measure of your fathers." This is the only 
instance, where our Lord ever threatened the 
Jews with the damnation of Gehenna. What 
this damnation was, we learn from the verses 
following, where Christ declares cc that upon 
the Jews should come all the righteous blood 
ofxlbel unto the blood of Zacharias; and af- 
firms, that the whole should come upon that 
generation. Here then, is one instance where, 
without doubt, Gehenna signifies temporal pun- 
ishment. Al! these hings— the damnation of 
Gehenna, a ad all the woes denounced in this 
chapter, should come on that generation, is 
not this a successful contradiction of your posi- 
tion? 

I will now call your attention to the instan- 
ces, where Gehenna was addressed to the disci- 
ples. There are nine of these. To present 
them in their true light, it is necessary to ob- 
serve, that the disciples were often encouraged 
to bear with patience their trials, by reference 
to the approaching calamities of the Jews, and 
the rewards which awaited believers in Christ. 
And nothing could be more natural,than such en- 
couragements ; for what were the afflictions of 
the Christians compared with the awful judg- 
ments that overwhelmed the Jews? As these 
judgments were called the damnation of hell, 
it is rational to suppose, that oar Lord would 



64 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



refer to this damnation, when addressing his 
disciples and exhorting them to faithfulness. 

I shall first consider the texts which refer to 
this. They are Matt. v. 29, 30; x. 28; xviii. 
9. Mark ix. 43, 45 and Luke xii. 5. There 
are certain phrases in these texts, which can- 
not be reconciled with the idea, that a future 
endless hell is intended. For instance — it is 
profitable that one of thy members should per- 
ish, and not that thy ichole body should be cast 
into hell — destroy soul and body in hell — enter 
life maimed — having two hands to go into hell — 
worm dieth not and fire is not quenched. These 
expressions cannot be literally understood ; and 
they give to the texts a figurative signification. 
Now if the hand, toot, eye and body, together 
with the worm and. fire, are to be understood 
figuratively, why should not Gehenna also ? If 
it be not, it differs from all other places, where 
it occurs in the New Testament. Besides, the 
worm and fire are both borrowed from Gehenna 
in the old Testament; and as they are figures, 
Gehenna must be. 

In Matt. v. 29, 30, the Savior speaks twice 
of casting the whole body into hell. Now as 
nothing is said of spirit, but as body is mention- 
ed, it seems impossible to resist the conviction, 
that Gehenna has no reference to endless wo . 
Whole body ! The body is not cast into a spirit- 
ual, future hell. This we know. We know 
therefore,that Gehenna cannot in this place mean 
endless suffering. Understand it then, as used 
by Jeremiah, and there is a propriety in its 
meaning, which none could mistake and a pow- 
er which none could resist. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



65 



Having considered all the instances where 
Gehenna is used as a figure of judgment upon 
the Jews, I will briefly notice the three remain- 
ing cases, where it occurs. In Mat}, v, 22, it 
is used in a manner which clearly teaches its 
meaning. Jesus speaks of three sins ; and in 
describing their punishment refers to three kinds 
of punishment among the Jews — the Judgment , 
Council and Gehenna. The 1st was beheading; 
the 2d stoning; and the third burning alive in 
Gehenna. Now as he spoke of three sins of dif- 
ferent magnitude, and employed three figures to 
represent their punishment, it is evident that 
he had no reference to endless miseiy. We 
might as well say, by Judgment and Council he 
intended to teach endless wo, as by Gehenna. 
But as none believe the former teach endless 
wo, why believe the latter does ? Besides, the 
first sin, bore the same proportion to the second, 
that the second did to the third ; and so it must 
be with the punishment. But where is the pro- 
portion between endless and limited misery? — 
Gehenna then, cannot here signify endless pun- 
ishment. 

On Matt, xxiii. 15, I will only say, " two 
fold more the child of hell, 55 must mean, doubly 
deserving the punishment of Gehenna. What 
this punishment was can be learnt from the 
woes denounced in the chapter — woes that were 
to come on the generation then living. See v. 36. 

James iii. 6, is the last text. "The tongue 
is a fire, a world of iniquity : so is the tongue 
among our members, that it defileth the whole 
body , and setteth on fire the course of nature; and 
it is set on fire of hell. 55 The author of these 
words was a Jew, and wrote to believing Jews. 



66 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



To these no figure could be employed to ex- 
press greater wickedness and misery, than the 
valley of Hinnom- Therefore, when he would 
show the evils of the tongue, he borrows a figure 
from this place, as it was the most abominable 
of any known to the Jews. 

Thus, dear sir, do we see, that not a single 
instance can be found, where Gehenna means 
endless punishment. By adopting this view of 
the word, we can rationally account for the 
fact, that it was-only used by Christ and James, 
and that it is not to be found, in the Gospel of 
John. Christ and James addressed Jews, and 
hence they spoke ol Gehenna. John wrote his 
Gospel for the Gentiles, and thefore says noth- 
ing of Gehenna. Paul was the Apostle of the 
Gentiles — hence the reason that he never preach- 
ed Gehenna. If this be not proof, that the pre- * 
sent use of the word was unknown in the Apos- 
tolic age, I know not the nature of proof. 

You say, the Gentiles were jnacquainted 
with the word. Unacquainted! When Paul 
preached among them twenty or thirty years, 
and wrote fourteen epistles ! ! Let a Metho- 
dist Minister go among a people ignorant of the 
word hell, and how long do you fancy, they 
wouldjremain thus ? If the Gentiles were igno- 
rant of Gehenna, and Paul declared the whole 
counsel of God, he would have instructed them 
respecting it, had he believed it to be a place of 
undying wo. They were ignorant of Christ, 
repentance and salvation, and he taught them. 

The word hell not once used to the Gentiles ! 
And yet the Gospel spread among them as on 
wings of light. Say not then, that our silence 
respecting* hell, has a licentious tendency. Fi- 



THEOLOGICAL, DISCUSSION. 



07 



nally sir, you may as well argue against the 
sun, as against the fact, that Gehenna was only 
addressed to those familiar with the Prophets 
and connected with the Jewish nation ; for had 
it signified a punishment to which Gentiles as 
weli as Jews were exposed, they would have 
been instructed respecting it, and warned of 
their danger. I am, very respectfully, your 
friend, Otis A. Skinner 



LETTER NO. V. 

Baltimore, Nov. 27, 1834. 

To Rev. Otis A. Skinner; 

Dear Sir: — On reading your first letter, I find 
a large quantity of extraneous matter, which 
can shed no light on the point at issue between 
us, but must necessarily bewilder and darken it 
more or less. What has the present controversy 
to do with the 'eternal decree^/ 'infinite sin/ 
'infants' skulls,' the damnation or salvation of 
the Heathen,' &c. The subject before us is 
'Universalism,' which, I suppose may be em- 
braced in the question, whether the punishment 
due to sin, is eternal or temporary, in its nature. 
You hold the latter. I hold the former. There- 
fore, all we say should have a direct bearing 
on this subject; which I consider to be of para- 
mount importance. You state that there is but 
a trifling difference between Universalists. All 
believe that punishment is designed to re- 



63 



THEOLOGICAL, DISCUSSION. 



form." Now I believe that all chastisements and 
afflictions in this life are designed to reform 
So far I agree with Universalists. But, I be- 
lieve that all punishment in a future state of 
existence is vindictive and not disciplinary. On 
this point I differ with the Universalists. I pur • 
pose attending to this point, in a future letter, 
if permitted. 

I shall attend to your four questions concern- 
ing 1 Thess. i 5 — 10, at a future period. As 
there is nothing else of any importance, in this 
letter, I shall dismiss it for the present, and 
proceed to theconsideration of your second letter. 

You appear greatly dissatisfied with my man- 
ner of quoting authorities, and speak in as 
stiong terms as if you had convicted me of 
fraudulent dealing; but, I can see no reason for 
all this warmth and dissatisfaction only that the 
truth pinches a little too tight. If you can 
show that I have perverted the views of an au- 
thority, or given that for his language which was 
not his, I am ready to stand publicly corrected. 
But as to the length of the quotation, it is with 
my own judgment to determine, and not for 
you to prescribe the quantity of matter I am to 
transcribe. The charge of taking things at 
f second hand 5 comes with a very bad grace, from 
one, that is in the constant practice of the same 
thing. 

I see that you have denounced, as an erro- 
neous bigot, Dr. Clarke, who was one of the 
most learned men of his age, merely, because 
he has presented the truth in such a strong and 
clear point of view, as to cut up the heresy of 
Universaiism, both root and fcranch. What 
will the serious and considerate think of this? 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



69 



Axon, you admit is derived from aei, and on. 
' On, 3 you remark 'signifies being, but does 
not fix its duration. 5 But, why did you not 
tell us that on was twice employed to express 
the being or existence of Christ? Rev. i. 4, 8, 
and twice to denote the being of the ever bles- 
sed God. Rev. iv. 8; xi. 17. This use of the 
word to say the least, is no proof that it has a 
limited signification. You say that on is de- 
rived from eimi, to be. This is admitted. Let 
us now see how eimi is generally applied in the 
New Testament, and the object of its common 
application, and it will probably cast some more 
light on this point. We read, c And Jesus said 
unto them, I am (eimi) the bread of life. 5 John 
vi. 35. 'I am (eimi) the light of the world. 5 
John viii. 12. 'Before Abraham was / am 
(eimi. 3 ) John viii. 58. c I am (eim ; ) the door. 5 
John x. 9. / am {eimi) the good shepherd. 5 
John x. 11. 'Where lam (eimi) there shall 
also my servant be. 5 John xii. 26. 'I am 
{eimi) Alpha and Omega 5 Rev i. 8. lam 
{eimi) alive forever more. 5 Rev. i. 18. I ask, 
is this use of the word any proof that it has a lim- 
ited signification. 

'Aei, 3 you say c is from a, intensitive, and eo, 
to be, which I readily admit. But I absolute- 
ly deny that aei has a limited signification in all 
the Jivz places you have cited from Rose's Park- 
hust. I deny that it has a limited meaning in 
Acts vii. 51, where it is said, 'Ye do always 
(aei) resist the Holy Ghost. 5 They never did 
any thing else but resist. There is not the least 
shadow of proof that they ever at any time, 
yielded in the least degree to the influence of 
the Holy Spirit. 'Yet always {aei ) rejoicing:. 5 



70 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



2 Cor. vi. 10, must necessarily be understood 
in an endless sense. What! the joy of the saints 
not endless!! Away with such absurdity and 
falsehood. What are the causes of the saints' 
joy? Are they not the atonement of Christ, 
the promises of God, their regeneration by the 
Divine Spirit, and the fact that, their names 
are written in heaven. When these causes 
shall be removed, or be annihilated by a superior 
power, the joy of the saints which is the effect, 
shall cease, and not till then. I say without 
hesitation that oei has properly an endless or un- 
limited signification, and in this, which is its 
proper sense, it is used in the two places just 
quoted. It has a limited, or "restricted sense 5 ' 
as Parkhurst remarks in Mark xv. 8; 2 Cor. 
iv. 11; 2 Pet. i. 12, which the reader may ex* 
amine at his leisure. Hence, aion, coming* from 
aei, always, and on, being, must in its gram- 
matical meaning, signify endless duration; 
therefore, I perfectly agree with Dr. Clarke, 
when he says "there is no word which more 
forcibly points out the grand characteristics of 
eternity." 

Your play upon the phrases, "since the world 
began," "from the beginning of the world," 
"whilst the world standeth," &c. and your ques- 
tion if the word in the singular means endless, 
how could it be used in the plural? and how the 
inspired writers could say, forever and ever? 
&c. I consider to be mere quibbles, unworthy 
of a profound scholar, miserable subterfuges, to 
which you in common with other Universalists, 
resort as the last place of retreat, in a desperate 
case; like a drowning man, grasping at the bub- 
bles on the water. Did I take it upon me to 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



71 



vindicate the propriety of the English phrases 
above mentioned? No. But I said the Greek 
word in those places must be taken in an end- 
less or unlimited signification Parkhurst says 
axon "both in the singular and the plural sig- 
nifies eternity, whether past or to come." Such 
questions as you have asked on this subject, 
should not have come from a sensible man, who 
professes to know and to teach truth. 

You should have known that the phrase, "day 
andnight," coupled with ( forever and ever' was 
a metaphorical expression to signify the perpetu- 
ity of the misery of the damned. If you look 
at Rev. iv. 8, you will find the same phrase 
connected with the celestial exercises of the 
glorious throng, before the throne of God. — 
And if you will turn to Rev. vii. 15, you will 
find that, the redeemed, who have come up out 
of great tribulation, and washed their robes in 
the blood of the lamb, are now before the throne 
of God, and there serve him "day and night." 
Now, there is as much reason to believe that 
the glory of heaven is on this earth, as there is 
to believe the torment of the damned is upon it. 
If you read the discourse of Josephus concern- 
ing Hades, yon will find that he uses the phrase 
"day and night, 55 in relation to eternity. So 
that your objection tothe phrase day and night 
is nothing but a mere quibble, which can have 
no weight. 

You were a little too hasty in denouncing, as 
false, my statement, concerning the preposition 
eis. I hope it was through inadvertency, rath- 
er than from mature consideration of the sub- 
ject. This part of the subject requires a full 
investigation, and must not be covered up. My 



72 



THE0GTJ3ICAL DISCUSSION. 



sentiments regarding it, are not in the least de- 
gree changed. The substance of my former 
statement, as you may see, by a reference to 
my second letter, is nearly as follows:- — The 
word axon occurs 104 times, in the New Testa- 
ment. It is 33 times employ ed to signify a tem- 
porary duration. And it is 71 times used to 
denote endless duration; in 6 of which cases it 
expresses the misery cf the damned. The word 
is governed by the preposition eis 61 times, in 
which construction it invariably, necessarily, 
and absolutely, means endless duration; the six 
cases ot future punishment are placed in this aw 
ful predicament! For the truth of this whole'state- 
ment, I appeal to any scholar whose mind is not 
warped or blinded by the false creed of Univer- 
salists. Let it be recollected I stated that the 
word, in 71 places means endless duration. In 
61 of these places it is governed by eis, conse- 
quently the word in 10 places has an endless 
signification where it is not governed by this 
preposition. They are as follows: — Mark x. 
30; Luke xviii. 30; John ix. 32; Acts xv. 18; 
Eph. iii. 9, 11, 21; Col. i. 26; 1 Tim. i. 17; 2 
Pet. iii. 18. I have given these references to 
enable the reader to examine these places and 
judge for himself; as there has been some slight 
disagreement among the learned, whether they 
should be understood in a limited , or an unlim- 
ited sense. I believe they require to be under 
stood, in an unlimited sense; therefore, I have 
added them to the places about which the learn- 
ed are agreed, making in all 71 places where 
the noun aion means endless duration. If this 
is denied I wish to see proofs, to convince the 
judgment, and not naked, dogmatical assertions, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 73 



T/liich must go for nothing with every enquir- 
ing mind. 

1 canhot admit that eis ton aiona, forever in 
John viii. 35, has a limited Si^nifi. aiion. To 
say that a servant i. e. a sinner ver. 34, shall 
not abide in the house forever, or to endless du- 
ration, is very correct and proper. T<> say 
that a child or son of God, as the sense of our 
Lord re-quires it to be understood, ver. 34, shall 
abide in the hbu e lore ver, or to ettrniiy, 
is absolutely correct, and true. If you say 
that the son shall not continue in the house or 
church of Gpd to eternity, but be cast out it is 
a giving up of the doctriae of Universalis™ at 
once: therefore, 1 hope it will not be said in fu- 
ture, that aion in this text has not an endless 
signification. 

Regarding eti being connected with aion, in 
Exod. xv. 18; and in Dan. xii. 3, and epekeina 
in the same construction in Mich. iv. 5, 1 would 
observe that, fint. These are not the only ca- 
ses in which the Septuagint made bad Greek for 
the purpose of making their version appear ex- 
actly literal. Second. It was not for the pur- 
pose of defining the exact signification of axon 
that such particles are a few times added to it. 
Third. The classical Greek writers and the in- 
spired writers of the New Testament, never 
felt the need of such additional particles w hen 
they wanted to express eternity. Fourth. It 
was to give what appeared a litteral rendering 
of the Hebrew phrase, literally in England, for 
ever and ever, that they added eti and epekeina. 
Both signifying ever, or eternity, by themselves 
when applied to things capable of eternal dura- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCtJSSTOrC 



tion. The two words were joined for the same 
reason that we join ever to forever; not because 
each singly does not fully express the thing in- 
tended, but because the union of both gives a 
stronger impression of it- 
Suppose 1 had a dispute with some man con- 
cerning the english adjective highest, and that 
I denied it to be of the superlative degree. And 
to vindicate my position quote the phrase, u O 
thou Most Highest," from Ps, ix. 2, in the 
Episcopal Protestant Prayer Book. Such pre- 
cisely, is your conduct in quoting the bad 
Greek of the Septuagmt. A scholar should 
be ashamed of such conduct. 

No real good can be derived from quotations 
taken from the uninspired, and often erroneous 
tranlation of the seventy; the" rubbish of the 
fathers; or, the heterogeneous works of other 
enthusiasts and fanatics that may have used the 
word aion and aionios. We have the New 
Testament written in the Greek language by 
inspired men; and to it alone we must appeal; 
and by it the point must be settled. 

I will lay down a few rules whereby the mena- 
ing of the words ever and everlasting may be 
known. These rules will apply io aion and 
aionios, in both the Old and New Testament. 

Rule. 3. Where the word ever or everlast- 
ing is applied to an object or things which, in 
itself is not endless, as mountains, or hills; it is 
then to be understood in a figurative sense de- 
scriptive of a period equivalent with the dura- 
tion of the object. But the word exerlasting is 
applied to the misery of punishment of the 
wicked, the wicked are immortal in their con- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 75 



slitution, therefore, the word here has an end- 
less signification. y- 

Rule. 2. When the word ever, or everlast- 
ing is applied to tin object or thing, as the servi- 
tude of a slave; which is, in other parts of scrip- 
ture, declared to have an end, the word must be 
taken in a metaphorical or limited sense; but no 
such declaration is made in scripture, concern- 
ing the punishment of the wicked; therefore, 
the word must be taken in an endless sense. 

Rule. 3. The word ever or everlasting when 
applied to objects and things, always conveys 
an idea parallel with the duration of the object 
and thing which it is applied, unless they may 
be otherwise expressed in the text. It is appli- 
ed to future punishment without any restriction 
whatever; therefore, it must be taken in its 
unlimited signification. 

I shall close these observations by stating, 
that I call on you before the public, to show, by 
proper arguments that axon in the New Testa- 
ment, when governed by the preposition eis y 
does not signify endless duration, or else give 
«p the doctrine of Universalism, at once, as in- 
defensible. Joseph M'Kee. 

LETTER NO. V. 
Baltimore, Nov. 29, 1834. 
To Rev. Joseph McKee: 

Dear Sin:— I agree with you in saying, that 
the only question, which claims our attention 
in this controversy, is, whether punishment is 
temporary or endless; but I must consider, the 
charge with which your letter commences as 
tmjust, and your questions as uncandid in th* 



7$ TftBOLOGICAt, EISCT7SSI0IT. 



extreme. Did you not commence the discus- 
sion, by sa : , ing, our difference of faith proves 
that our whole system is wrong] And in my 
reply, did I not show that th^re were only shades 
of difference among; us, while among our op- 
posers, there are those of the greatest magni- 
tude; and that if your argument was sound, it 
overthrew all religion? In doing this, I allu- 
ded to the doctrine of reprobation, infinite sin, 
infinite damnation, and the case of the heathen. 
But how do you meet this reply? Why by a 
most singular process— not by an argument 
either from reason, nature or scripture, but 
by the cry of wandering from the subject. — 
An easy method this; if it should only prove 
satisfactory. The candid reader is not to be 
duped in this way, and though he may pity your 
dilemma, he will still call for proof. In pass- 
ing, I will ask, if heathens and infants are not 
concerned fn the question at issue, who are? 

I expected, that my exposure of your partial 
quotations from Lexicographers would produce 
great uneasiness and piteous attempts at justi- 
fication. But realy, I did not expect you would 
say in plain terms, it is right to quote all or a 
part of an author's definition, as might suit your 
purpose. But why not quote the whole? — By 
your rule, I could prove, that according to 
Lexicographers mon never merins endless; for 
all say it signifies age. I unhesitatingly de- 
clare, theiefore, that you perverted the views 
of your authorities, f objected to your second 
hand quotations from Aristotle and Philo, be- 
cause according to it, they differ from all oth- 
er Lexicographers and from the testimony of 
Qoodwin respecting them. — This you meet bj 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 77 



accusing me of being alike guilty, a singular 
meih<>d of justifying a wrong 1 . Please name 
an instance where J have done this. 

Finding nothing objectionable in the spirit of 
rny letter, you have recourse to invention, and 
falsely accuse me with calling Clarke a 'bigot!' 
Now why is this? Do you imagine that all you 
may say will be implicitly received; and that 
such unfairness will aid your cause? You are 
welcome to all the benefit of such means. 

Thus much foryour irrelevant and uncandid 
introduction to letter five. 

Your attempt to prove, that according lo its 
etymology, aion signifies endless, in an entire 
failure, as a few remarks will show. Let us 
consider first what you say of 'on. You bring 
two cases, where it expresses the existence of 
God, and two the existence of Christ. But do 
these prove that it expressed endless duration? 
Jones says, on signifies a real existence, in op- 
position, to what exists only in appearance or 
profession, Thus the blind man said, being ( on) 
blind, 1 now see John fx: 25, So in John viii: 47. 
He that is (an) of God, heareth God's words. 
So also John xviii. 37. Every one that is ( on) 
of the truth, heareth my words. These cases 
show, that on signifies what actually is, and not 
what appears to be: when the Revelator, there- 
fore, applied the word to God and Christ, his de- 
sign was to express in the strongest manner 
their real existence. On therefore expresses re- 
ality, but not eternity. Of this there is no doubt. 

2 Eimi. Your remarks on this, as on on, 
are a literary curiosity. Contrary to the defi- 
nition of Parkhursr, who in the nine senses in 
19 



7S THEOLO&ICAL DISCtTSSIOIf. 



which it occurs, does not say, that even once 
it Signifies endless, you alude to eight cases 
where it is applied to Christ, and vainly ima- 
gine that these prove it endless. But why did 
you not refer to the fict, that it signifies a lim- 
ited existence? See for instance Matt, xviii. 20. 
"Where two or three are gathared together in 
my name, there am (eimi) I in the midst of 
them;" John vii. 33. Yet a little while am 
(eimi) I with you; 1 Cor. ix 1. Am (eimi) I 
not an apostle? Am (eimi) I not free? 1 Cor. 
xv. 9. For I am (eimi) the least of the apostles; 
Phil. iv. 11. I have learned in whatsoever slate 
I am (eimi) therewith to be content. Now 
from these cases, it is certain that eimi expres- 
ses nothing with regard to duration Jones says 
it means reality, something lake on. We might 
as well say, the Greek word for has oris means 
endless, because applied to God, as eimi. 
£ 2. Aei. You deny two out of five of the 
texts produced to piove this limited. 

But do you pretend to affirm that Paul, Acts 
vii. 25, taught that the Jews never would yield 
to the Holy Ghost? You know that he referred 
to their continual opposition to God, and that 
he said nothing of what would be. Had he de- 
clared they would always resist, the case would 
be different. Your position then, contradicts the 
apGStle. The same is true of 2 Cor. vi. 10, f as 
sorrowful yet always rejoiceing. 5 Because I said 
always did not mean endless, you pretend to 
great astonishment; and cry 'away with such 
absurdity and falsehood! Flourishes and notes 
of surprise, will never supply the place of argu- 
ment. That Paul had no reference to the futur* 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



73 



joy of saints is evident from his saying*, f as 
sorrowful yet always rejoicing. Will saints have 
sorrow in heaven? See the whole verse, which 
represents the Christians as poor and having* 
nothing. But is such language applicable to 
glory. 

Thus have we proved that on, evmi and ate have 
no such meaning as endless, and as aion is from- 
ed from them, its grammatical sense must be a 
continued existence. ( >f limbing- am I more fully 
convinced. 1 did suppose that something more 
plausible might be said in favor of the popular 
opinion; but I am frank to say, 1 can see noth- 
ing in your present letter which deserves the 
name of criticism or argument; and I would 
not said what I have, had I not desired to go 
more fully into the derivation of aion. 

IV] y questions respecting the beginning and 
end of aion, its being used in the plural and in 
a reduplicate form, are met with your stereo- 
typed and all conquering argument — quibbles, 
unworiify a profound scholar, miserable subti r- 
fuges, bubbles at which a drowning man grasps, 
and what every man of sense would despise! 

I pity the man who has no better means of de- 
fence than such wretched slang. But I will 
not render railing; for railing. 

Your hint that the translation of ton aionon 
eis tons aionas is wrong, is entirely foreign 
from the question. 1 asked not concerning this 
but concerning the beginning and end of aion; 
how it could be used in the plural; and why the 
inspired writers should say> aionos ton aionon* 
if aion means endless; and had you been able to 
answer these, you would not have rasorted to 
19* 



so 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



abuse and denunciation. 

You say, as the phrase, day an night is 
Connected with the celestial exercises of the hea- 
venly throng, it must be understood as a meta- 
phorical expression to signify perpetuity. But 
first prove, that the texts to which you -allude, 
relate to the final state of saints 

That they refer to this world, there is no 
doubt. The figures, the representations, the 
allusions to burning lamps, thunder and light- 
ning, seas of glass, land and water, all show this. 
I might quote Clarke here; for his sword has two 
edges, and it has demolished some of the strong 
holds of endless wo. But why should I offer 
proof against your assumptions? 

You accuse me of inadvertency of something 
worse in my reply to your proposition respect- 
ing eis; but I now say, even in its modified 
form, it is groundless. 1- It is not "admitted 
on all hands that aion in Gocases means endless." 
This you now admit; for you say 10 of these ca- 
ses are thought by some to be limited. 2. Ai- 
on governed by eis is limited in the following 
texts, where you consider it endless: Matt. 
xxl. 19; Mark xi. 14; Luke i. 55; John iv. 14; 
vL 51, 58; ix. 32; x, 28; xiii. 8; xiv. 16; 1. Cor. 
viii. 13; Hab. v. 6; vi. 5, 20, vii. 17, 21. To 
these I might add many more; but they are suf- 
ficient. 3. If in 10 cases aion is eudless when 
not governed by eis, this preposition can be 
no rule by which to determine its meaning. — 
4. Aion in one of your 33 cases of limited dura- 
tion, signifies the eternal world. See Luke 
xx. 35. 

One remark here respecting dogmatical asser- 
tions. You discover a peculiar love for denun- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



ciation,, and fcrcertain sterotyped changes, such 
as quibbles, dogmatism, &c. Now what did you 
more than to assert, that aion in the 55 instances 
governed by eis means endless? But though 
you simply asserted this. I pointed out 8 cases 
where eis did not govern it., which you said 
were endless, showed that in the Greek of the 
lxx. it was often limited when governed by eis, 
and that such was the ease in the New Testa- 
ment. This you call dogmatism! 

Your remarks on John viii. 35, 1 consider 
unfounded, because Christ alluded to a custom 
among the Hebrews, recorded in Exod. xxr 
respecting slavery. The servant, or slave serv- 
ed only six years, and hence the expression,, he 
abideth not forever. But the son remained dur- 
ing* life. That I am right is certain from Exod. 
xxi. 6, where we iearn^, that after a slave had 
refused freedom, he was to serve forever (eis 
ton aiona) or during life. Spiritualise this as 
you please, such were the facts respecting slaves 
and sons, and such is the language used respect- 
ing the time of their remaining in the house. — 
That Jesus used the slave and son as figures I 
admit, but this alters not the use of aion. Here 
then is another argument against your view of 
eis, and another proof that aion is limited. 

Your positions respecting eti and epekeina, 
are tautological and unfounded. The 1st and 
4th are the same. It matters not whether the 
lxx made good Greek or not. Their use of 
these words, (and they give the true sense of 
the Hebrew) shows, that aion was not under- 
stood by them to mean endless. You say, eti 
and epekeina were not used to define the exact 
signification of aion- True, but their use, 



82 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



shows that it was limited, otherwise no wcrl 
expressing addition, would have been added. — 
The fact that these particles do not occur in the 
New Testament can prove nothing with res- 
pect to their use by the Ixx. 

Yonr vindication of the double form of aion 
is far-fetched and fallacious. The Hebrew is 
olama va ad. The Septuagin* is ton aiona, kai 
tp* aiona, kai eti: in other places it is eis ton 
aiona, kai eis ton aiona. tou aionos. In the 
New Testament, it is eis tous aionos ton ai- 
onan. Now all these expressions are the same 
in meaning. They are giammaacal, 1 ecause 
olam and aion, depend on their use lor their sig- 
nification; but did they strictly mean endless, 
no rule of language could justify their use in 
this manner. It olam means a long time., ohm 
va ad would be a still longer time; but if olam 
means eternity then olam va ad means eternity 
and beyond it. So with the Greek, both of the 
Ixx and the New Testament. In the light of 
these tacts, what shall we think of your classi- 
cal allusion to Most Highest? You object to 
my allusion to the Septuagint, then you must 
object to the Hebrew ami to the Greek of the 
New Testament, for the same form of expres- 
sion occurs in both. 

You differ widely from Dr. Clarke, respect- 
ing the Septuagint. While you are saying it is 
bad Greek and can be of no service, he declares, 
thnt it is of the greatest service. Besides, why 
not refer to this, as well as to the Targums? 

With regard to the phrase of forever and ever, 
they have grown out of the Hebrew and Greek* 
and are used in the same sense. Thus we say 
forever, and mean the period of life, forever mi 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 83 



mean eternity, forever and ever, and mean the 
same. The word? as their originals in Hebrew 
and Greek, depend on their use for the sense. 
The translators in numerous instances recog- 
nize this rule. 

Before considering your three rules, it may- 
be well to observe the change you have expe- 
rienced since writing letter No. 2. Then the 
question must turn on the grammatical mean- 
ing of aionj now other rules must be adopted. 
But bad you proved that axon of itself means 
endless, it would be no argument against us, 
because as it is variously used, we must learn 
its sense from its connexion. This all critics 
allow'. 

Rule 1 is admitted, but the inference is re- 
jected, it having not the most distant connexion 
with the rule. The immortality of the. mind is 
no proof of the immortality of sin. Sin is cor - 
ruption; it is of earthly origin; it is not of God 
and must come to nought. The misery of the 
mind depends not on its immortality, but on its 
impurity. Hence before Rule I would justify 
you in saying that aionios, in connexion with 
misery means endless, you must prove that sin, 
the cause of misery is endless in its nature. — 
The nature of the mind proves nothing with 
respect to the nature or duration of sin. 

Rule 2 is admitted, but the assumption denied. 
When you say, the Bible nowhere teaches that 
punishment will end, you assume the whole 
ground in debate. Suppose I should say, the 
Bible declares that the misery of the wicked 
will end; therefore, aionios when connected 
with misery, must be limited — would you not 
call me an oracle; and would not the wise mea 



84 IDEOLOGICAL DISCTTSSIOHT. 



of the land do me reverence? What honors then 
are due to thee? 

Rue 3 i« admitted, but tlie groundless asser- 
tion isrejetted with contempt. That a rruin pro- 
fessing to arp;ue a religious question, and from 
the scriptures too, should deal thus in assertions, 
is almost iueredil le. Why is this, Sir? Have 
pou exhausted your slock of arguments? The 
vyhole of letter five consists of charges, assump- 
tions and assertions. 

Your public call respecting eis is quite pomp- 
ous. VV ith one breath, you lay down three rules 
to decide the question at issue,and with the next 
you declare that a preposition settles the matter 
eis ton aiona. But before you made this call, it 
would have been well to prove, that aion means 
endless, in the fifty-five cases where it is gov- 
erned by eis; and as that matter rests on as- 
sumption, it must receive attention, or your 
public call will be answered by one loud and 
long from the public. 

I have paid no attention to your remark, that 
future punishment is vindictive, thinking it best, 
to leave this, till furnished with your reasona 
for converting God into a bsingoi rage and re- 
venge* and for arming him with infinite ven- 
geance. 

One word on your remark that "no good cart 
arise from allusions to the heterogenous words 
of enthusiasts and fanatics, who have used aion 
and aionios," and 1 will close. This was doubt- 
less made with. reference to my closing remarks 
in letter No. 3, where I alluded to the manner 
in which these words were used by the Greek 
fathers: Knowing that this would be an unan- 
iwerable argument against you; the fathers are 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



85 



denounced as enthusiasts and fanatics. This is 
in keeping with letter No. 1, where you de- 
nounce these fathers as artful and cunning, and 
accuse them of the mean artifice of torturing 
and perventing the Bible to deceive the illite- 
rate. Not content with heaping contempt on 
some of the mo^t learned and pious christian 
fathers, you even denounce the Septuagint. But 
this you are compelled to do, in order to sus- 
tain your unfounded notions. Why may not 
as much aid be derived from the Greek fathers, 
as from the Tar gums? 

'There is one fact worthy of notice respecting 
these fathers. Several of those who wrote in 
the Greek language during the second, third 
and fourth centuries, maintained the doctrine 
of Universal Salvation; yet they freely and hab- 
itually applied the terms in question to the sub- 
ject of punishment, without any explanation, 
such as our modern prepossessions whould have 
made necessary in order to prevent mistake 
This shows that the ancient Greek fathers nev- 
er suspected that those terms would, of them- 
selves, convey the notion of endless duration, 
when applied to punishment. And this con- 
clusion is confirmed by another fact, viz. that 
those Greek fathers who on the contrary did 
not believe in Universal Salvation, and who 
began at length zealously to oppose that doc- 
trine, never quoted the terms now in question, 
against their opponents, but resorted to other 
arguments. I speak of the most ancient Greek 
christians; those who lived before the fifth cen- 
tury. I am, &c. 

Otis A, Skinxeh* 



S3 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION- 



LETTER NO. VI. 

Baltimore, Nov, 25, 1S34. 
To Rev. Otis A Skinner: 

Dear Sir. — I was more surprised on reading* 
your third letter, than I was by all your former 
communications. It appears to me that you 
wish to confine almost every subject in the scrip- 
tures, to the state of mortality, in the present 
w T orld. One would think, by your manner of 
treating the subject, that you intended to set 
every thing at loose ends, and consider nothing 
as absolutely certain. It would appear that you 
endeavoured, not only, to destroy the evidence 
of endless misery, but the evidence of endless 
happiness; and, even jender doubtful, the im- 
mortality of the soul. I never expected to find 
a Universalist/'that Jwould so much as insinu- 
ate the smallest doubt, concerning the unlimited 
duration of the spiritual life of the saints. — But 
such is the state of affairs. Now, it appears 
to me that, the endless happiness of the saints, 
must be proved by the adjective oionios, or 
not at all, for, I know of no other word by 
which it can be done, if this one be insufficient 
to do it. Therefore, the misery of the wicked 
and the happiness of the saints must stand, or 
fall together; if amnios cannot prove the endless 
duration of misery, it cannot prove the endless 
duration of happiness; and if it can prove the 
interminable duration of happiness; it has un- 
doubtedly the same force in its. application to 
misery; it is the adjective which is commonly 
used in the scriptures to express both. 

Regarding the word (zee) life, it may be re- 
marked , that there are several SDrts of lifo. — 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSS1KO. 



As, — 1 Vegetable life. This is found in all veg- 
etables,, plants , flowers and trees. 2. Animal 
life. This abounds in the fishes of the sea, the 
birds of the air, the beasts of the field, and in 
tho mortal body of man. 3. JRationallife This 
faculty exists in man; that is, in the unregener- 
ated of mankind, and this gives man the preem- 
inence over all other things, in this lower crea- 
tion. 4. Spiritual life. This priuciple is com- 
municated to the heart of the believer by the 
Spirit of God, 2 Cor. iii. 6, and is to be found in 
none but those who believe in Christ, with a 
hearl unto righteousness, it is called the life of 
God, Eph. iv. 18, because it is a principle which 
came from God, producing holiness of heart and 
uprightness of deportment, in those who pes- 
sess it, and shall ultimately return to God. 
This is sometimes called u 'a treasure in an earth- 
en vessel." 2. Cor. iv. 7. It is nothing short 
of the Redeemer himself, dwelling in the human 
heart by faith. This is manifest, from the phra- 
seology of scripture, where it is said, e( Christ in 
you the hope of glory," Col. i. 24, and where 
he is called "our life," &c. Col. iii. 4. Those 
metaphors, generally, which exhibit the union 
of Christ with his people, convey, very clearly, 
the idea of life. If you give him the appellation 
of Prince, Acts iii. 15, you must allow, he is the 
Prince of life. If Bread, John vi. 48, he is the 
bread of life. If Water, Rev. xxii. 17, he is 
the water of life. If a Stone, 1 Pet. ii. 4, he is 
a living stone. If you liken him to a Tree, Rev. 
ii. 7, he is the tree of life. The life of the re- 
deemed seems to be both connected with the life 
of Christ, and to to depending; on it, and of equal 



S3 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



duration with it. This is evident from *he 
words of our blessed Saviour himself, f - because I 
live ye shall live also." John xiv^ 19. Fur- 
thermore, the apostle John declares that, 4 -he who 
hath the Son h.ith life, and he who hath not the 
Son hath not life, 1 John v. 12. Now this 
spiritual life, in the redeemed, is, in forty four 
places called (zoea aiouioii) eternal life. It is 
strange to me, that any Universal ist would cast 
the slightest shade over the doctrine of endless 
happiness. A man may have a treasure in his 
possession, and afterwards lose it; bat, this is no 
argument to prove, that, the treasure is not still 
of the same value and excellence. A diamond 
is a diamond as well when it is in the bottom 
of the sea, as when it is in a lady's breast. — 
Christ is the same yesterday, to-day and forev- 
er. This spiritual life was intended to exist to 
interminable ages, by Him, who is able to sus- 
tain it against all opposition. Either, the saints 
have endless life, or they have not. Take which 
side of the question 3^ou please. If you say they 
have not, this controversy is at an end; for then 
they must be annihilated, or go into an endless 
hell. If you say they have endless life, you 
cannot deny but the phrase zoen aionicn means 
eternal life, or endless life, as you will have 
some considerable difficulty in proving- their hap- 
piness to be endless by any other word. Heave 
it with the reader to judge whether the attempt 
to deny that endless life was intended in those 
forty four cases, was a mere quibble, in order to 
get quit of the word when employed to express 
the duration of future misery. 
That the everlasting life> and everlasting 



THEOLOGICAL discussion. 8& 

shame and contempt mentioned in Dan. xii. 2. 
were to take place upon the Jews, in this life, 
is extremely doubtful, to say the least. It ap- 
pears that the transactions mentioned in the 
text, shall not take place till the day of judg- 
ment. It is said many (all) of them that sleep 
in the dust of the earth shall awake, some toev- 
erlasting life and some to shame and everlasting 
contempt. (See parellel passage in John v. 28, 
29). A man that can torture this text, so as 
to explain it of a temporal transaction, previous 
to the day of judgment, may use every text in 
the Bible like a nose ef wax that will bend eve- 
ry way. It is worthy of remark, that the dura- 
tion, both of happiness of the righteous, and 
the contempt of the wicked, is expressed by 
the word olam in the Hebrew, aionion in the 
Greek., and yverlasting in the English. This 
text is point blank against the doctrine of Uni- 
versal ism. 

This text in Acts xiii. 43, has nothing to do 
with foreordination of predestination to eternal 
life. As many as were (tetagmenoi) disposed, 
adapted, or prepared for eternal life, believed. 
There is not one word concerning predestination 
in the text? but merely a present disposition to 
embrace eternal life, such as were so disposed, 
believed the report of the gospel. 

As to your question, "if everlasting life means 
endless happiness, why did Jesus, after saying, 
he gave his sheep eternal life, add, and they 
shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them 
out of my hand," it may be said, he used this 
form of speech, not because each particular did 
not mean endless life, but to make a deeper ira- 
20 



$0 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION* 



pression on the mind of his audience. And for 
the same reason, we have often, in scripture, two 
or more words or phrases of the same significa- 
tion, coupled together; as, "prayer and supplica- 
tion," &c. &c. 

In relation to the use of the word aionios, in 
R;>m. xvi. 25, 2 Tim. i. 8; Tit. i. 2; it may be 
remarked that there is no inconsistency in un- 
derstanding the word in the endless sense. 'I he 
phrase, mmtericu kroncis aioniois sesigeme- 
wou, may, with as much truth and propriety be 
rendered, "mystery kept secret during the eter- 
nal or unlimited past ages, or from eternity," as 
"mystery kept secret since the world began." 
The phrase "before the world began," or "be- 
fore eternity.", I think, is no more absurd than 
the Eaglish phrase, 'from eternity' or 'to eter- 
nity.' Both seem to refer to some point when 
eternity began, or when it will end. If a point 
of time be admitted to justify the phrase 'from 
eternity,' certainly it is not absurd to say before 
eternity, as all points of time presuppose a pre- 
vious time. The fact is, neither the phrase, 
•from eternity' nor the phrase 'before eterni- 
ty,' vvifl bear a critical investigation, though we 
are sometimes obliged to use them, owing to 
the poverty of language. 

The phrase 'everlasting gospel not only 
means, that it shall be preached to the end of 
the world, and that none other shall succeed it; 
but it signifies that its effects shall be endless, 
in all them that hear it. Those who believe 
and obey shall have endless happiness, and 
those who reject it shall have endless misery. 
This far, I think, is intended by the phrase, 
Everlasting gospel." 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 91 



You ask me, "how can Christ's kingdom be end- 
less when he says, he shall deliver it up to his Fa- 
ther," (he said no such thing) See 1 Cor. xv. 24, 
This is a strange question! If you say his king- 
dom is not endless, the discussion is at an end, for 
his kingdom is composed of men and they must 
either be annihilated or cast into endless perdition, 
if they do not continue to compose that kingdom. 
I hold that Christ's kingdom is endless, because 
it is said, "of the increase of his government and 
peace, there shall be no end." Isa. ix. 17. Again, 
"his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which 
shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which 
shall not be destroyed.' 3 Dan. vii. 12. Again, " he 
shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of 
his kingdom there shall be no end. 35 Luke i. 33, 
The transfer of an object from one agent to ano- 
ther, certainly does not imply the destruction of 
the object thus transferred. Therefore, Christ 3 ^ 
kingdom may be endless, in its nature and con- 
stitution, though in some sense delivered up to 
the Father. This is poor shuffling to do away 
the force of the adjective aionios, — Nothing but 
a bad cause could set a man at war with his own 
principles. 

In regard to the meaning of the phrase, "en- 
ter into life maimed," Matt, xviii, 8, I would 
observe, that the word "maimed," is employed 
to comport with the metaphorical language of 
the preceding part of the verse, where the 
*hand" and "foot" are intended to designate 
our beloved sins, which we must lay aside, or 
cut off; before we can possess eternal life. 

It does not appear to me that the paragraph 
in Matt. xxv. from verse 31 to the end of the 
21 

m 



92 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

chapter, can be properly understood,in any oth- 
er way butas descriptive of the day of judgment. 
A parable is a sort of fable or allegorical dis- 
course, founded on something in nature or com- 
mon life, from which moral instruction is drawn. 
Now, the passage in question is not founded on 
any past transaction in life; but, must through- 
out be considered as literally descriptive, with 
the exception of one trope or metaphor i. e. the 
sheep and the goats. Suppose you should sub- 
stitute the word saints and sinners, which you, 
no doubt, allow to be what is intended, and 
then see if any passage could be more literally 
descriptive. At all events, whatever length the 
duration of the misery of the wicked may be, the 
happiness of the righteous is just the same, as 
the sane word is employed to express the dura- 
tion, of both. 

I cannot consider the observations on Mark 
iii. 29; Heb. vi. 2; and Jude 7 in any other point 
of view, than as mere evasions, quibbles, void of 
close and accurate criticism. Take the following 
as a specimen. u Axonion remember, is formed 
from axon; and as axon is used to signify an age, 
an aionion damnation must be the damnation of 
an age." This is a sort of logic that will suit 
any purpose. Let me try it on another subject, 
till we see how it will work. Godlike remem- 
ber, is formed from God; and as God is used to 
signify an idol, a godlike man must be a man 
like an idol. Who would not be ashamed of 
such absurdities as these? The discerning rea- 
der, will observe that, in all your remarks con- 
cerning aion and aionios, you never told us how 
often, either the one or the other was to be taken 
in a limited or unlimited signification; nor point- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 93 



ed out ihe'places where they were so to be un- 
derstood, though you said both words were 
to be taken, sometimes in the one way, and 
sometimes in the other. If this does not man- 
ifest a fear, lest truth should come out, I know 
not what does. 

I shall close these remarks, for the present, 
concerning the adjective aiomos, with a quota- 
tion from Dr. Clarke, taken from his notes on 
Matt: xxv. 46. "But some are of opinion that 
this punishment shall have an end. This is as 
likely as that the glory of the righteous shall 
have an end: for the same word is used to ex- 
press the duration of the punishment, kolasin 
aionion, as is used to express the duration of 
the state of glory: zoen aionion. I have seen 
the best things that have been written in favour 
of the final redemption of damned spirits; but I 
never saw an answer to the argument a- 
gainst the doctrine drawn from this verse, but 
what sound learning and criticism should be 
ashmedto acknowledge." 

At the close of your letter you say, "when 
the inspired writers would express the endless 
felicity of heaven, they use such words as end- 
less, incorruptible, immortal, &c, words strictly 
unequivocal in their meaning. And in your 
sermon on Matt. xxv. 31 — 46, (page 20) you 
say, "We do not rely on axon to express the du- 
ration ol future blessedness; but we rely on 
words, which are of the most expressive charac- 
ter, such as immortal, incorruptible, and endless 
— words that are never applied to sin or any of 
its consequences." Where are those words em- 
ployed by the inspired writers to express the du- 



94 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 

ration of the happiness of ail men? I deny 
that such language is ever used in scripture in 
relation to all men; unless you can show that it 
is employed to express the final salvation of the 
wicked, your labor goes for nothing, as no one 
denies the endless happiness of the righteous. 

1 doubt very much that the word endless is ever 
used in scripture to express the duration of the 
happiness of the saints, or whether the words 
immortal and incorruptible are ever used to ex- 
press either happiness or misery but merely per- 
petual existence. I now call upon you to prove 
what you have said, in relation to these words; 
that is, to show where they are employed to ex- 
press the duration of the happiness of the re- 
deemed, and also to produce the strongest adjec- 
tive you can find in the New Testament to 
prove the endless happiness of the saints, and I 
will promise to show as strong language from 
the same authority to prove the endless pun- 
ishment of the wicked. 

Respecting the first question proposed in your 
first letter, concerning the revelation of Christ, 

2 Thess. i. 7, if his coming was not to destroy 
Jerusalem, I would remark that 4 there are, at 
least, five distinct and separate comings of 
Christ, noticed in the scriptures. The blending 
together of these various manifestations or com- 
ings of Christ, has caused great confusion in 
the study of the New Testament. In general 
any remarkable manifestation of the power of 
Christ, in the dispensations of his providence, 
either for the overthrow of his enemies or the 
establishment of his kingdom is called his com- 
ing. I have classed his various comings, men- 
tioned in scripture, as follows: 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 95 



1. His coming literally into the world. — 
Mai. iii. 1. 2. His coming by his providence to 
destroy Jerusalem and establish his kingdom, 
which took place 40 years after his ascension to 
heaven. Dan. vii. 13 14; Matt. xxiv. 27—39. 
His coming by his providence to destroy the 
"man of sin" and establish more firmly his 
kingdom. 2 Thes. i., 8. The "man of sin" 
and "son of perdition," is said by Bishop New- 
ton, to be the pope, or rather the power held by 
a succession of popes. According to this inter- 
pretation which is as likely as any, to be the 
true one, this manifestation of Christ has not 
taken place; but will according to some, in the 
year 1866. Consider this as an answer to the 
first and fourth question. 4. His coming by 
his proviaence to deliver his people from their 
miseries by death. Matt. xxv. 13; Luke xii. 
40, 43; 1. Cor. i. 8. 5. His coming at the day 
of judgment, literally to judge the world, Matt, 
xxv. 31; 1 Thes. iv. 15; 2 Tim. iv. 1. Rev. i. 7. 
As to your second question, it is certain, the apos- 
tle was speaking of the deliverance of the saints 
and the destruction of their persecutors; but 
this is no^proof that the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem was intended, but rather the final overthrow 
of the ungodly at the day of judgment; as this 
world is not the place of rewards or punish- 
ments, but the place of the probation of all. As 
to how I will reconcile the uncertainty of the 
day, spoken of by Paul, with the day of judg- 
ment, I see no difficulty at all. The time of the 
day of judgment was unknown, and still is un- 
known, but the fact that there is such a day, is 
revealed. And though the time is uncertain 
21* 



96 THEOLOGICAL, DISCUSSION. 

the apostles always exhorted the people to be 
constantly ready for that day. 

Now as I have endeavoured to answer, at 
least, one half dozen questions, which by the 
way, had a very remote bearing on the subject 
in hand, I will take the liberty of asking you an- 
other half dozen that have a direct reference to 
the subject of the present discussion, which I 
hope you will answer in your next communica- 
tion. They are as follows: 

1. What length of time shall the wicked con- 
tinue in misery in a future state of existence? if 
this cannot be answered, 

2. How can you prove that their misery is 
not endless? 

3. What influence has the atonement of Christ 
on the condition of the damned, in a future state? 

4. Is ho diabulos, the devil, a personal spirit, 
or nothing but the depravity of human nature' 2 

5. Whether is the devil and his companions 
to be annihilated, or admitted into the heavenly 
blessedness, when all misery shall come to an 
end? 

6. Is Jesus Christ, as to his Divine nature, 
truly and really God? 

Yours in the bonds of Christianity, 

Joseph McKee. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 97 



LETTER, No. VI. 

Baltimore, Nov. 22, 1834. 

To Rev. Joseph McKee: 

Dear Sir — I regret that so much of your let- 
ter is wasted in charging me with sentiments 
to which I have not alluded, and m denouncing 
as quibbles what you have not attempted to an- 
swer. Because I deny that everlasting life, 
(zoen aionion ' s alway means endless happi- 
ness, I am accused of denying the immortality of 
the soul, and the eternity of bliss. But, I 
should much rather see you prove that the life 
of faith is endless, than deal out such ground- 
less charges. "Why did you pass unnoticed, 
the numerous quotations which I made, where 
believers are said to have eternal life ? These 
are not even honored with the charge of quib- 
bles. They stand therefore, in undisputed 
strength, against your views. 

It is surprising, that you should again say, if 
we deny the eternity of misery, we must the e- 
ternity of happiness, because aionios is applied 
to both, when you have not replied to my ar- 
guments, showing that in every instance, where 
aionios is connected with misery, the scope of 
the subject, limits it to this world. Eternal 
life and punishment are only twice (how often 
in Methodist sermons V) set in contrast in the 
whole Bible. The first instance (Dan. xii: 2.) 
is applied by our Lord to the destruction of Je- 
. resalem. Is not this a strong argument in proof 
that the last (Matt, xxv: 46.) refers to the same 
time? It does refer to a coming of Christ; it is a 
22 



98 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



part of our Lord's answer to his disciples' question 
when he should come; and in this answer, he 
several times declares, that his coming would 
be in that age. You admit that olam in Daniel 
is the same as aionios in Matt, (though you de- 
nied this in Letter, No. 1.) It is morally cer- 
tain then, that both refer to the same event — 
the destruction of Jerusalem. 

The criticism to which you cling, as the main 
pillar of endless wo, has nolhing but its antiquity 
for a recommendation. This will appear by 
considering, 

1. The use of olam in the Old Testament. — 
Like aionios of the New, it is the common word 
for eternity; and it is used to express the eternal 
existence of God, his attributes and his ways; 
and yet, it is applied to hills, mountains, cove- 
nants, and a very great variety ot things, which 
have ceased to exist. It is used in one text 
(Habakkuk iii: 6.) in a limited and unlimited 
sense; and it signifies in one case (Jonah ii: 6.) 
three days and three nights. Now, according 
to your logic, if olam does not mean endless 
when applied to hills, &c. it does not when ap- 
plied to God. That it is limited in these cases, 
we know. Your reasoning therefore, disproves 
the Divine existence. 

2. The meaning of aionios must be determin- 
ed by the noun to which it is applied, and the 
circumstances under which it is used. Thus, 
when we read of Onesimus being with Phile- 
mon forever, (aionion) of believers having eter- 
nal life, (zoen aionion) and of the eternal (aion- 
ion) God, we learn the meaning of aionios by 
the noun with which it is connected. Now, 
we can prove, from the nature of happiness, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



S9 



and the circumstances under which aionios oc- 
curs, that it sometimes means endless, when 
applied to Hie. Therefore, unless you can show 
either from the nature of punishment, or the 
circumstances under which aionios is used, 
when applied to misery, that it signifies end- 
ess, your criticism is unfounded. 

3. Your criticism was first advanced by Au- 
gustine, an African Eishop, A. D. 414. Previ- 
ous to that time, though much had been writ- 
ten against Universalism, no argument, had been 
drawn, either from aion or aionios; and the Uni- 
versalists of that period, threatened sinners with 
aionion punishment, without offering any such 
explanation, as the education of this age, would 
require of me, were I thus to threaten sinners. 
This proves, that Christ and the Apostles, could 
not have used aion and aionios in their present 
popular sense. 

There being but little in your .letter, which 
requires an answer, and as I am accused of 
shrinking from an investigation of the phrase, 
zocn aionion, I will give the different senses in 
which it. occurs. 

1. It signifies the life of faith — a life which 
lasts during the existence of faith. See John 
iii: 16, 36; vi: 40, 47, 54. In these, and numer- 
ous other instances, believers are said to have 
everlasting life. That endless life is not meant, 
is evident for several reasons, 1. Because the be- 
liever of to-day. may be the infidel of to-morrow. 
2. Eternal life is synonymous with life, enter- 
ing Chrises kingdom, having rest, peace, joy and 
love. See John vi. 33, 53; 1. John v. 12; Heb. 
iv. 3; 1 John iii. 15; Rom. xiv. 17; xv. 13; John 
iii. 5. 3. In this world, we walk by faith, not 



100 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



by sight. 4. Endless joy, will not be depend- 
ent on faith. In heaven, we shall see eye to 
eye and know as we are known. We shall 
have the bliss of actual possession and of per- 
fect knowledge. The aionion life of faith, there- 
fore, can never mean endless. How many, who 
once had life, peace and joy, are now dead in 
trespasses and sin! It will not answer to say, 
they had endless life, but have lost it through 
unbelief, as your illustration from the diamond 
supposes; for we walk by faith; faith is the evi- 
dence of things not seen. Instead of introduc- 
ing us to its object, faith only enables us to en- 
joy it, by anticipation. Thus, in this world, 
where our journey lies through a vale of tears 
and we are overshadowed by clouds of aifflc- 
tion, we are cheered and guided on our way, 
by the beamings of faith. 'Tis this which il- 
lumines our path and enables us to hope for a 
better world to come. But however strong our 
faith may be, we posses not the endless life 
w T hich it reveals. That which is strictly endless 
can have no contingencies. In this world, there- 
fore, saints cannot have endless life; for theirs' 
is contingent. Even those, in whom Christ, 
the hope of glory dwelt, did not have endless life; 
for many renounced their Savior. They drank, it 
is true, from an unfailing fountain of lite; but the 
contingencies of faith and love show, that they 
had not endless life. In saying this, I cast not 
a shade of doubt over the eternity of bliss; be- 
cause, in the immortal state, there can be no 
contingencies. My sentiments therefore, are far 
from leading to annihilation, except it be the 
annihilation of the arguments against impartial 
grace. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 101 

2. Zoen aionion (eternal life) is used to ex- 
press the reward of the primitive christians, after 
the destruction of Jerusalem. See Matt. xix. 
29; xxv. 46; Mark x. 30; Luke xviii. 30; John 
xii. 25. This world (aioii) means, according to 
critics, the Jewish age; the world (aion) to 
come the christian. Those who left house, 
land and connexions, under the Jewish age, for 
the Gospel, would receive as a reward for their 
sacrifices, sufferings and faithfulness, eternal life 
in the christian age. By giving up all, and living 
as though'they would lose their lives, (Matt, xvi. 
25) they would save them. Hence (John xii. 
25) it is said, those who hated their lives should 
keep them unto life eternal, while those who 
loved their lives should lose them. This could 
not me an endless life, for it was given us a re- 
word, (Matt xxv. 34 — 37) whereas endless life 
is a free gilt; neither could it he the life of faith, 
for this the disciples enjoyed, when ithe ] prom- 
ise was made relative to the coming age. Be- 
sides, it was a life to which t^eir bodies would 
be preserved. It was therefore, that season of 
rest, granted to the primitive christians, after 
their enemies were overwhelmed in judgment. 
See Matt. xxiv. 13; xvi. 24—28; Heb. x. 32— 
39, where similar promises are made. Let it 
be remembered here, that Daniel xii. 2, is ap- 
plied by our Lord to this reward and punishment. 

3. Zoen aionion signifies endless life. Thus 
the Saviour says: "Father the hour is come, glo- 
rify thy Son, that thy Son may also glorify thee, 
as thou hast given him power over all flesh that 
he might give eternal life to as many as th u 
hast given him." John xvii. 1, 2. St Pa u l, 
contrasting the reign of sin with that of glory, 



102 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



says: "As sin hath reigned unto death, even 
so might grace reign through righteousness un- 
to eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. 
v. 21. St. John says: "This is the record that 
God hath given us eternal life, and this life is 
in his Son." 1 John v 11. From these quota- 
tions, we see. that zoen aionion often signifies 
the life, which exists in Christ, what was given 
in him, and what he will finally give all flesh. 
To give endless life to all, would be the high- 
est glory of God, and cause grace to reign as 
universally, unto eternal life, as sin had reign- 
ed unto death. Those who deny this, make 
God a liar, for this is the record which God has 
given of his Son. If ail had not endless life in 
him, disbelieving the record would notmake God 
a liar for the record would be false. Hence St. 
John says, these things have I written, that ye 
may know ye have eternal life, and that ye may 
believe on the name of the Son of God. This life 
exists independently of faith, and is the end, 
the glory and vital element of the gospel. It was 
a gift, not an offer; a free gift, not granted as a 
reward. It is synonymous with the inheritance, 
incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not a- 
way, which is reserved for us in heaven. It must 
therefore be endless.' 

Let us consider also, that Christ was made a 
minister of infinite blessings and unsearchable 
riches. In him all fulness dwelt; he was the 
life of the world, the new and living way, the 
salvation of God to xheends of the earth. Add 
to all this, those words, strictly endless, which 
are used to express the result ot his mission — 
words never applied to sin or misery, and the 
eternity of life is placed beyond dispute. Thus, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION* 103 



Christ is said to be made a high priest, after the 
power of an endless (akatalutou ) life. He is 
the resurrection and the life, and as all died in 
Adam, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 
In the resurrection state, we shall be incorrupti- 
ble and immortal, for the dead, (1 Cor. xv. 52) 
not a part, but the dead shall be raised thus. All 
men then, will be raised incorruptible^and im- 
mortal. Hence Christ says, in the resurrection 
state, they are ''equal unto the angels! How 
are angels? holy and happy. So then will man- 
kind be. They will die no more, being the 
children of the resurrection. When the resur- 
rection, therefore, takes place, all will be subject- 
ed to Christ, he will deliver up his kingdom to 
the Father, God will be all in all, death will be 
destroyed, this corruptible will put on incorrupt 
tion and this mortal immortality. Then will 
be brought to pass th saying that is written, 
death is swallowed up in victory. To under- 
stand the full import of this saying, turn to Isai. 
xx v. where this is written. There God de- 
clares, that he has prepared a feast for all peo- 
ple, that he will destroy the covering cast over 
all, that he will swallow up death in victory, 
wipe away tears from ail faces, and take away 
the rebuke of his people from all the earth. — 
At the resurrection then, ignorance, death, 
tears and rebuke will be unknown^ and all will 
be brought to a participation of grace. Then 
too will be heard the song, O death where is thy 
sting] O grave ( hell) where is thy victory? — 
Now as the sting of death is sin, we could not 
shout the victory over death, while suffering un- 
der iis sting. Sin therefore, can have no exis- 
tence in the resurrection state. What is here 



104 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



proved of one man, is proved of the whole 

WORLD. 

Such, dear sir, is ihe proof that the life which 
Christ will give to the world is endless; and the 
man, I was about to say, who, in view of this 
could doubt the endless happiness of all, could 
doubt his own existence. We may say there- 
tore, in the language of Clarke, "The sal- 
vation from sin, is as extensive and complete 
as the guilt and contamination of sin, death is 
conquered, hell disappointed, the devil confound- 
ed, and sin totally destroyed. Hallelujah! The 
Lord God omnipotent reigneth! Amen and 
Amen!" 

I will now briefly allude to your remarks res- 
pecting my third letter. On Dan. xii. 2, you 
say, a man, who can so torture this text as to 
refer it to a temporal judgment, may use every 
text in the Eible, as a nose of wax. Power- 
ful reasoning! The stron g pillars of Universa- 
lism must now fall. The Saviour erred when 
he applied this language to the destruction of 
Jerusalem. Speaking of this, he says in the 
language of Daniel, "then," that is, when 
those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall 
awake — "then shall be a time of trouble, such 
as never was since there was a nation." 

I cannot admit, that ordained to life, means 
disposed to life, because, ordained (tetagmenoi) 
is from a Hebrew word, which signifies to place, 
to set, to appoint. 2. According to the best 
authorities, this is the sense ot'tasso from which 
tetagmenoi is formed. Other texts speak of fore- 
ordination to life. See Eph. i. 4, 5, 11; ii. 10; 
Rom. viii. 29, 30. 

On the remark offered respecting Christ's giv- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 105 

ing his sheep eternal lite, I will only say, had 
the people understood this phrase as you do, no 
expression to render it impressive could have 
been wanting; for what could be stronger, than 
I will give them endless life! 

Your remarks on Rom. xvi. 25; 2 Tim. i. 9; 
Tit. i. 2; are entirely unsatisfactory. By adopt- 
ing my views of these texts, no difficulty oc- 
curs; but if you prefer to convert the language 
of inspiration into absurdity and contradiction, 
rather than admit that aionios is sometimes lim- 
ited, I have nothing to say. Argument in such 
a case is useless. Every reader will see your 
error. The texts speak of a purpose formed be- 
fore the aionion times; of a mystery kept hid 
since the beginning of the world; and of eternal 
life provided before the world began. Now if 
you say, aionios in these cases, means eternity, 
you must charge the inspired writers with speak- 
ing of eternities, of a time%efore eternities, and 
of their beginning. 

As the phrase everlasting gospel has but little 
bearing on the question at issue, 1 will only re- 
mark on what you have said, the effects of the 
gospel are no more endless than of the law, 
so that we might as well say, everlasting law, 
as everlasting gospel. 

By the end of Christ's kingdom I meant his 
giving it up to the Father. Then comet h the 
end when he shall deliver up the kingdom to 
God. Which will you follow, Paul, or your own 
fancy? The texts which you have brought to 
prove that Christ's kingdom will not end, are 
evidently misapplied. One says, of the increase 
of his government there shall be no end. But 
how can it continue to increase when the world 



106 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

has ceased to exist and Christ is no longer 
King? Another says, he shall reign over 
the house Jacob forever. But shall we explain 
this to contradict Paul, where he says, he shall 
reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet? 
This certainly implies that his reign would end. 
Your inference , that if Christ's kingdom ends 
Universalim cannot be true, is far fetched and 
absurd; for Paul says , Christ delivers up his 
kingdom to the Father, and God is all in all. 

On Matt, xviii. 8, you speak with apparent 
hesitancy, but having explained this in my 3d 
letter, I will add nothing further. 

On Matt, xxv : 46, you say, it appears to 
me, that this refers to a future judgment. 
Thus it is you treat the main text against Uni- 
versalism — you rest your application of it en- 
tirely on popular prejudice. And this you 
back up, by continually repeating Clarke's as- 
sertion, that sound criticism and learning 
should be ashamed of what Universalists have 
said on the text. Please give one argument, 
that the text appeared to inspired men, as it 
appears to you. 

My expositions of Mark iii. 29; Heb. vi. 
2, Jude 7, are passed in silence. The reader 
will draw his own conclusions. It is true, you 
have denounced them as evasions, quibbles, &c. 
It is also true, that you have ridiculed what I 
said on Mark iii. 29. My inference respect- 
ing aionion was founded on the agreement be- 
tween Mark and Matthew (xii. 16.) The for- 
mer says, hath not forgiveness unto the age, 
(axon) but is in danger of everlasting (aionion) 
damnation. The latter says, neither in tki$ 
age, (aiori) neither in the age (aiori) to come. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



107 



This argument proves positively , that axon is 
limited, for how could another aion come unless 
this ended? Now as aionion was formed from 
aion, was not my inference just? I will here 
add, what Mark expresses by, is in danger of 
aionion damnation, Matthew express by, hath 
not forgiveness in the age to come. Thus we 
see, according to Matthew and Mark, the ad- 
jective (aionios) signifies no more than the 
noun (aion.y My inference therefore, is indis- 
putable. What a pity that Matthew and Mark 
had not lived in this age. Than they might have 
saved themselves the shame of making our 
Lord teach the absured doctrine of an age- 
lasting judgment upon those who refused his 
instructions. And how strange that such a 
a shameful absurditv should happen to be true. 
A sad judgment indeed befel the enemies of 
our Lord, 

By the rule which you prove five comings of 
Chirst, I can prove fifty. Texts which I have 
proved, relate to the destruction of Jerusalem, 
you apply to three different events, without, a 
single proof for so doing! Now is this fair? And 
is this the way to settle the question at issue? 
If you have proof, why deal thus in assump- 
tions? All the main texts which speak of a com- 
ing to punish men, I have proved, refer to the 
destruction of Jerusalem. Among these are 
Matt. xxv. 46, 2, Thess. 1, 9, and unless you 
answer my arguments on these, I shall consider 
them rescued from your hands. 

Your reply to my 2d proposition on 2, Thess. 
1, 9, does not meet the question. Those who 
troubled the christians were to be recompens- 
ed; arsd at th<i time of this, the christians were 



108 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



to be redeemed from trouble. The time then, 
could not be at a future judgment. You say 
this judgment must be in the future world, be- 
cause this is not a world of rewards and punish- 
ments. Then there is not a God who judgeth 
in the earth, and the righteous and wicked are 
not here recompensed. Peter says, "The time 
is come, that judgment must begin at the house 
of God, or with us, the christians." 

Your reply to my 3d proposition is an entire 
failure. The question was, respecting the un- 
certainly of the day (that day shall not come 
except there come a tailing away first,) and not 
respecting the uncertainty of their knowledge, 
when it would come. 

The other two you have not attempted to an- 
swer. 

Your six questions, I consider, entirely irre- 
levant; but to save words, I will answer brief- 
ly. To the 1st, I reply, I pretend not to be 
wise above what is written. To the 2d, by show- 
ing that there is no proof of endless misery. (By 
reviewing our discussion, you might have eas- 
ily answered this. To the 3d, the same it has in 
this. To the 4th and 5th, I reject the common 
doctrine of a devil and of course his salvation. 
To 6lh— I believe Christ is the Son of God. 
I am &c. 

Otis A, Skinner. 



Theological discussion; 109 



LETTER No. VII. 

Baltimore, Dec. 30, 1834; 
To itev. Otis A. Skinner: — 

Dear Sir, — I shall in this letter, lay be- 
fore you twelve objections to the doctrine of 
universal salvation, taken from the metaphor^ 
and parables of the New Testament; And 3 

L In Matth. in. 12. (see Luke in. 17.) 
we read that "he will thoroughly purge his 
floor, and gather the wheat into the garner; 
but he will burn up the chaff with unquench- 
able fire. On this text I would remark thafy 
1. The wheat and the ch aff are metaphors, in-^ 
tended to point out the condition of the right- 
eous and the wicked, in this world* 2* The 
disposition which was made of them, thafjis* 
the gathering in of the wheat to the garner, 
and the burning up of the chaff, was design- 
ed to point out the disposition which shall be 
made of the righteous and the wicked, at the 
day of judgment; the former shall be admit- 
ted into the heavenly blessedness, while the 
iatter shall be cast into eternal fire. No Wj to 
say that, the wicked will come to eternal 
life as well as the righteous, would not on- 
ly quite destroy the most prominent feature 
in the metaphor, but directly contradict it; 

2. We are informed Matth. in. 10. (Matth* 
in. 17—19; Luke in. 9.) that "the axe is 
laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every 
tree which bringeth not forth good fruit, is 
23 



110 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



hewn down and cast into the fire." On this 1 
passage I would observe, 1 . The word trees 
is a trope or metaphor to signify men. 2. The 
axe is the justice of God. 3. The good fruit 
is the fruit of the spirit. Gal. v. 22, 23., love, 
joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, good- 
ness, faith or fidelity, meekness and temper- 
ance. Those who do not bring forth these? 
fruits shall be cut down by the judgments of 
God, and cast into everlasting fire. One of 
the most prominent features in this metaphor 
is, the utter impossibility of a burned tree, re- 
turning to its original state of verdure. This 
idea, when carried out, and applied to the 
state of the sinner, will present itself in direct 
opposition to his final restoration to endless 
happiness. 

3. We read Matth. v. 13. (Luke xiv. 34, 
35.) "ye are the salt of the earth; but if the 
salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it 
be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothings 
but to be cast out, and trodden under foot of 
men.'' Here it may be observed, 1. The 
w T ord sail is a metaphor, designed to signify 
men. 2. The savour of the salt may signify 
the influence of true piety, and the grace of 
God, in the hearts and lives of men. 3. The 
use of salt, is to preserve the various articles 
of domestic life; so truly pious men preserve, 
for a time, the ungodly from temporal destruc- 
tion, and are sometimes the means of their 
eternal salvation. See the case of Sodom. — 
Now if the salt loose its savour, it is thence- 
forth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and. 
trodden under foot of men: therefore, if men 
give themselves up to final apostacy, they are 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 111 

fit for nothing but to be cast out of the king- 
dom of God, "and banished to everlasting de- 
struction. The most striking idea in this fi- 
gure is perfectly hostile to the doctrine of uni- 
versal salvation. 

4. We are told, Matt. xn. 43, 45, (Luke 
xi. 24, 26.) that '"when the unclean spirit is 
gone out of a man, he walketh through dry- 
places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then 
he saith, I will return into my house from 
whence I came out, and when he is come, he 
findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then 
goeth he, and take th with himself seven other 
spirits more wicked than himself, and they 
.enter in and dwell there; and the last state of 
that man is worse than the first." Now this 
parable, if it may be cailed a parable, points 
out the life, character, 1 and final condition of 
an r ' apostate. The unclean spirit was cast 
out by the spirit of God, at his conversion. — 
The unclean spirit or principle returned at his 
fall from the grace of God., The seven other 
spirits, more wicked than the former, enter- 
ing into the man, points out his total depravi- 
ty and entire abandonment of all good. The 
last state of this man is worse than the first. 
Now if the doctrine of Universalism be true, 
the last state of every man is infinitely better 
than any former state, whatever it may have 
been. Hence, one of the leading features of 
this passage, is directly opposed to Universa- 
lism. 

5. In Matth. xnx. 47., it is declared, that 
"the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that 
was cast into the sea, and gathered of every 
kind; which, when it was full, they drew to the 



112 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

shore, and sat down, and gathered the good 
into vessels, and cast the bad (sapra dead, or 
rotten ) away." On these words I remark: 
1. The sea may signify the world. 2. The 
fish mankind. 3. The net the gospel. 4. 
The fishers the ministers of Christ. 5. The 
good and bad fish, saints and sinners; the for- 
mer are to be gathered into churches, and the 
latter to be cast away. So shall it be, said 
our Saviour, at the end of- the world; the an- 
gels shall come forth and sever the wicked 
Irom among the just, and shall cast them into 
the furnace of fire, Our Lord's explanation 
of this parable is extremely hostile to the doc- 
trine of Universalism. 

6. The parable of the wheat and the tares 
recorded in Matth. yiii. 24, 30., and explain- 
ed in Matth. xiii. 36 — 43., affords a very for- 
midable bulwark, against the innovations of 
Universalism. Let us see the particulars of 
this parable. 1. The field is the world. 2. 
The good seed are the children of God. 3. 
The tares are the children of the devil. 4. The 
tares and the wheat, or the righteous and the 
wicked, are to remain together till the har- 
vest. 5. The harvest is the end of the world, 
(not the end of the Jewish age, for the tares 
are still among- the wheat.) 6. The reapers 
are the angels, who shall gather up the tares, 
and burn them in the fire. Thus it shall be, 
at the end of the world; for, the Son of man 
shall send forth his angels, and they shall ga- 
ther out of his kingdom all things that offend 3 
and them that do iniquity; and shall cast 
£hem into a furnace of fire. I cannot see how 
the tares; after being burned, shall become 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 1 i$ 

wheat; which must be the case if Universa- 
lism be true., I wish to see a consistent ex- 
position . of this parable; and yet in accord- 
ance with the principles of Universalism: but 
this is utterly impossible. 

% The parable of the ten virgins, Matth. 
xxv. 1 — 12, presents a difficulty of some con- 
siderable magnitude, to the reception of the 
doctrine of Universalism. This parable, in 
general, represents the state of the church in 
this world. The five wise virgins who took 
oil in their vessels to recruit their lamps, re- 
present true christians, that obtain the grace^ 
of God, which will serve to sustain them in 
the hour of death, and at the day of judgment,,. 
-The five foolish virgins, represent formal pro- 
fessors, who are blameless in the eyes of the 
world, have a lamp of outward profession, but 
make no provision for eternity by seeking the> 
regeneration of the heart. The coming of the 
bridegroom may signify Christ's coming to 
judgment at the last day. The admission of 
the wise virgins to the wedding, may indi- 
cate the introduction of the saints into the 
kingdom of glory. While the rejection of the 
foolish may, as forcibly, point out the final re- 
jection of the wicked, at the last day. The 
leading features of this parable, preseiat a ve- 
ry strong objection, to the final salvation of 
all men. 

i 8. The parable of the talents, Matth. xxv. 
14, 30, is utterly irreconeielable with the doc- 
trine of the Universalists. Let us review some 
of the leading features of this parable. 1. 
The travelling man may represent the Al- 
mighty God. 2, The servants signify all 
21* 



114 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



mankind. 3. The goods or talents, which 
were distributed, signify the spiritual and tem- 
poral gifts, ecclesiastical ordinances, and all 
the other means of improvement that a bene- 
ficent Creator has given us. 4. <The return of 
the Lord, or time of reckoning with the ser- 
vants, means the day of judgment. 5. He 
that was admitted to the confidence and joy 
of his master, as a reward for improving the 
five talents, may signify such christians as 
suffered most in their master's cause, and 
done most for his honour in this world. 6. 
Those who were honoured for improving on 
the two talents, may signify such christians 
as had not many opportunities of doing good, 
but improved the opportunities which they 
had. 7. He that had the one talent taken 
from him, and given to him that had the five, 
may represent those sinners, at the last day, 
who never made any improvement on the op- 
portunities and means of doing good, which 
God had given them. This man was called a 
"wicked,' 17 "slothful/' "unprofitable servant," 
and was cast into outer darkness, where there 
Ts weeping and gnashing of teeth; all which, 
in the most striking manner, point out the ut- 
ter destruction of ungodly men, at the last 
day. 

9. The parable of the feast, Luke xiv. 15, 
24, presents an insuperable objection to the 
final salvation of all men. Let us examine 
the principal features of the parable, and see 
how it stands. The certain man is the Al- 
mighty God. The supper is the blessings 
and benefits of the gospel. Those that were 
bidden were the Jews, who, when they were 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 115 



invited to attend the feast, preferred their 
lands, their oxen, &c. to the benefits of the 
gospel. This dispieased the ruler of the feast. 
The "poor, the maimed, the half" and "the 
blind" that were invited to come in, from "the 
streets, lanes, highways" and "hedges," were 
the Gentiles, who have ever since enjoyed the 
privileges of the gospel of our Saviour. Now 
what I wish to note here particularly is this: 
when the master of the feast heard that those 
who were bidden, made light of the invita- 
tion, he was angry, and among other things 
said, "that none of those men that were bid- 
den should taste of the supper." If this teach- 
es any thing, it is this: those who absolutely 
refuse to comply with the invitations of the 
gospel, during their probationary state, shall 
finally be excluded from any part or share in 
its blessings and invaluable benefits. 

10. The parable or history of the rich man 
and Lazarus, Luke xvi. 18, 31, is utterly ir- 
reconcilable with Universalism. We have 
no intimation, in any part of the chapter, that 
this is a parable Our Lord introduces the 
subject as a history, by saying, "there was a 
certain rich man," &c. To say it is not a 
history, but a parable, is the same as to say 
there was no such rich man, and therefore di- 
rectly contradict, our Lord. There is a proper 
name (Lazarus) in this passage, which is ne- 
ver the case with any parable. However, 
whether it be a parable or a history, the gene- 
ral features in it, are the same. But let us 
see what they are. In the character of the 
rich man and Lazarus, we have represented 
in general the character of the righteous and 
2.4 



116 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



the wicked, both in this world, and in that 
which is to come. They both lived in this 
world a certain time, which points out the 
probationary state of man. They both died 
and were buried, and their spirits entered into 
the invisible world; as shall be the case with 
all mankind. The rich man was in a state 
of misery, as is manifest from the metaphori- 
cal language used on that occasion; while the 
beggar was in a state of felicity, which is al- 
so manifest by the metaphorical expression, 
"Abraham's bosom," a phrase understood 
among the Jews, to mean the state of celes- 
tial bliss. Between the states of these two 
men, is placed, what is called, "a great gulph." 
Now whatever the great gulph may mean, it 
is certain that no one can pass over it, from 
one condition to the other. This was affirm- 
ed by Abraham. It is probable that the 
"great gulph" means, simply, theunchanga- 
ble decree of the immutable and incompre- 
hensible Jehovah, who has fixed unalterably, 
the states of departed spirits. How the doc- 
trine of Universalism can be reconciled, with 
the doctrine of this passage, I know not. 

11. The parable or metaphor of the vine 
and its branches, presents a strong objection 
to the doctrine of the Universalists, John xv. 
5, 6. A very few remarks, will illustrate this 
parable. God is the husbandman. Christ is 
the vine. His disciples, or believers in gene- 
ral, are the branches. To abide in the vine, 
is to continue in the faith of the gospel; the 
consequence of which is, much fruit shall be 
brought forth. Those apostates, or branches 
that do not abide in him, are "taken away 3 " 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 117 

or "cast forth," and "cast into the fire, and 
they are burned." How can the doctrine of 
this text agree with the salvation of all men? 

12. In Jude 12, the wicked are likened to 
trees. And to represent their endless destruc- 
tion, in the most striking manner, the apostle 
says, they are "trees whose (untimely) fruit 
withereth, without (mature) fruit, twice dead, 
plucked up by the roots." The propriety of 
this phraseology will appear, if we consider 
that, man is dead spiritually, in his natural 
state; that he may be quickened by divine 
grace, may lose his spiritual life, and be so 
lost to all sense of moral good that no more 
hope of his recovery remains, than there is of 
the foliage and verdure of a rotten tree, that 
is plucked up out of the soil, by the roots. 

Now, sir, I leave these things with you, for 
your consideration. If you can prove, by fair 
criticism, and sound reason, that the chaff, af- 
ter being burned, shall become wheat; the tree, 
after being burned, shall produce fruit; that 
the salt, after losing its savour, is good for 
something; the last state of the man is not 
worse than the first; that the rotten fish shall 
become sound; that the tares, after being burn- 
ed, shall become wheat; that the foolish virgins 
shall be admitted to the marriage; that those 
who were bidden shall eat of the supper; if 
you can prove, in a satisfactory manner, that 
men can, and will pass the great gulph; that 
the branches of a vine, after being burned in 
the fire, shall bring forth fruit; and that a 
rotten tree, plucked up by the roots, shall 
grow and flourish most luxuriantly, I will say 
you are the greatest champion for Universa- 



118 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



lism I ever had the pleasure of seeing. insf 
farther more, I will say that our blessed Sa- 
viour chose a very strange set of metaplurs^ 
by which to convey the doctrine of Univeca- 
lisrrL I am ; your's, &c. 

Joseph McKeei 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



119 



LETTER No. VII. 

Baltimore, Jan. 4 } 1835. 
To Rev. Joseph McKee: 

Dear Sir, — Before examining- your twelve ob- 
jections against Universalism, I wish to observe, 
that in every instance you have assumed, that 
your proof texts refer to the future world; and on 
these assumptions you have founded your argu- 
ments. What aid you could expect from such 
assumptions, I am unable to conceive. Did you 
suppose, that our readers could not distinguish 
between assumption and argument? Did you 
imagine, that the anxious inquirer after truth, 
would be satisfied with such a superficial meth- 
od of investigating subjects? In this letter, you 
have brought forward, twelve passages of scrip- 
ture, on which, in a very grave manner, you 
have given your opinion, and which, you have 
pronounced extremely hostile to Universalism. 
On some of these, you speak with positiveness, 
and on others, with doubt. Thus we are told 
one text has this meaning, and another may have 
that. Now it would certainly be sufficient, in 
reply to all you have said, to go through with 
your twelve texts, and say, this does not signify 
as you have said, and that may not signify as you 
have supposed. And I pursue a different course, 
not because what you have said merits a reply, 
but because popular prejudice refers your proof 
texts to the future world. 



120 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



1. Matt, ilk; 12; (Luke iii: 16,) After giving 
your opinion, respecting what is intended by 
wheat and chaff; yon assume, that the dispo- 
sition made of these, shows the disposition, 
which will be made of mankind, at the day 
of judgment. Have you no argument against 
universalism, but popular opinion? As Pea.rce, 
Hammond, Lightfoot, Cappe, Kenrick, and 
every commentator, with wiiich I have met, 
are against you; I will reply to your assumption 
by giving Clarke's exposition of the text: 

c Whose fan is in his hand: The Romans are 
here termed God's fan, as in ve?. 10, they were 
termed his axe; and in chap. xxii. 7, they are 
termed his troops or armies- His floor-— Does 
not this mean the land of Judea, which has been 
long, as it were, the threshing floor of the 
Lord? Gpd says he will now, by the winnow- 
ing fan, [viz. the Romans,] thoroughly cleanse 
this floor;— the wheat'-, those who believe in the 
Lord Jesus, he will gather into his garner , eith- 
er take to, heaven from the evil to come, or put 
in a place of safety, as he did the christians, by 
sending them to Pella, in Ccelosyria, previously 
to the destruction of Jerusalem. But he will 
burn up the chaff — the disobedient and rebellious; 
Jews, who would not come unto Christ that they 
might have life. Unquenchable ire: — that can- 
mot be extinguished by man.' Com. in loc* 

Referring this to the Jewish nation, removes 
your supposed difficulty, about the restoration of 
the wicked to life; for the judgment which they 
experienced was in this worldu 

2, Matt. iii. 10. (Luke iii. 9.) Here you as- 
sume that the cutting down of the trees repre-. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 121 

sents the destruction, which will came on a part of 
mankind at a future judgment. The commenta- 
tors referred to, in the other text, are against you 
on this. Clarke says: It was customary with 
' the prophets, to represent the kingdoms, nations, 
and individuals, whose ruin they predicted, under 
the notion of forests and trees, doomed to be cut 
down. See Jer. xlvi. 22, 23. Ezek. xxxi. 3, 
11, 12. The Baptist follows the same metaphor; 
the Jewish nation is the tree, and the Romans 
the axe, which, by the just judgment of God, 
was speedily to cut it down. It has been well 
observed, that there is an allusiou here to a wood^ 
man, who, having marked a tree for excision, 
lays his axe at its root, and strips off his outer 
garment, that he may wield his blows more pow- 
erfully; and that his work may be quickly per- 
formed- For about sixty years before the coming 
of Christ, this axe had been lying at the root of 
the Jewish tree, Judea having been made a pro- 
vince to the Roman empire, from the time that 
Pompey took the city of Jerusalem, during the 
contentions of the two brothers Hyrcanus and 
Aristobulus, which was about sixty three years 
before the coming of Christ. See Josephus An- 
tiq. 1. xiv. c. h — 5. But the country might 
be still considered as in the hands of the Jews, 
though subject to the Romans, and God had 
waited on them now, nearly ninety years from 
the above time, expecting them to bring forth 
fruit, and none was yet produced; but he kept the 
Romans, as an axe, lying at the root of this tree, 
who were ready to cut it down the moment God 
gave them the commission.'' Com. in loc> 

Under this figure of cutting down trees, the 
prophets frequently represent temporal judg-. 



122 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION". 



ments. See Isa. x: 33, 34. Jer. xlvi: 22, 23. Eze. 
xxxi: \, 3 , 10 — 12. As cutting down and burn- 
ing trees represents a national judgment, your ar- 
gument drawn from the impossibility of a burned 
tree returning to its verdure, has no force.. I pre- 
tend not that the Jewish nation will return to its 
former state. 

3. Matt, v: 13. (Luke xiv: 34, 35.) Here you 
assume that to be trodden under foot of men, repre- 
sents endless suffering. But what is there in the 
figure which justifies such an assumption? Theo- 
phylact says, it signifies to be despised. Mack- 
night explains it thus: "If ye, whose business it 
is to reform mankind, be wicked yourselves, ye 
cannot be reclaimed, but will be the most useless 
and contemptible of men." The words were 
addressed by our Lord to his disciples, who were 
the light of the world, but if they had lost their 
light, or become like unsavory salt, they would 
be cast out of the church. Nothing is said of 
another world. This is certain. How then can 
it prove endless misery? 

4. Matt. xii. 43—45. (Luke xi. 24—26.) 
Here you assume that the state of the man with 
seven spirits was his final state. But the text 
sa} T s nothing of this. That represents him in 
two states — one with one evil spirit — the other 
with seven. When it says the last state of that 
man is worse than the first, it means, his state 
with seven evil spirits, is worse than with one. No 
allusion is made to death or eternity. This man 
was a figure of the Jewish nation. Grotius, I 
believe has given the sense of the text in the 
following words: 

^Christ appears to have had reference to the 
character of the Jewish people, at the two pe- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



123 



riods of their captivity in Babylon., and their de- 
struction by Titus. Before their captivity, the 
people were exceedingly wicked, as may be seen 
in the Prophets; during their exile many began 
to reform, and und&r a superintending Providence^ 
returned to their native land. But in the days 
of the Asmoneans, having again plunged into ex- 
cessive wickedness, they added to their other 
crimes, a contempt of the Messiah, who came to 
them with a message of mercy, and exercising 
miraculous power. Having done this, they were 
abandoned by God, and became the most wicked 
of all men, as Josephus has described them in 
his history of their last days.' Annot- in loc 

5. Matt. xiii. 47. Here you assume, that the 
end of the world (aiori) is the end of the mate- 
rial universe. By turning to Matt. xxiv. we 
shall see the falsity of this. There the disciples 
ask what shall be the sign of the end of the 
world (aiori) ? In answer to this, Jesus enu- 
merates several signs, but says the end is not yet. 
He then mentions other signs, and says after 
these, the end (end of the world or age) shall 
come. In the same chapter he teaches, that that 
generation should not pass away, till all these 
things were fulfilled. The parable then, repre- 
sents the effects of the Gospel before, and the 
separation which took place at, the destruction of 
Jerusalem. Furnace of fire — weeping and gnash- 
ing of teeth, are figures to represent the doom of 
the Jews. This is evident from the time to which 
the text refers, and from the use of the figures. 

This explanation accords with the opinion of 
Dr. Clarke. He says: "It is probable, that this 
parable in its primary meaning, refers to the 



124 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

Jewish state, and that when Christ should come' 
to judge and destroy them by the Roman power^ 
the genuine followers of Christ should escape,* 
and the rest be overwhelmed in the general de- 
struction. See chap. xxiv. 30." 

6. Matt. xiii. 36—43. Here you assume,, as 
in the previous text, that the end of the world, 
(aion) (the time of the harvest) is the end of the 
universe. The arguments adduced on that are 
equally applicable to this. It is only necessary 
therefore to consider the figures here used — fur- 
nace,, weeping and gnashing of teeth. In Isai. 
xxxi. 9, we read that God's fire is in Zion, and 
his furnace in Jerusalem. See also Ezek. xxii. 
18, 20, 22. From these references, we see,, that 
furnace is used in the Old Testament, to signify 
sore, temporal calamities. Now as our Lord 
spoke to Jews, who were familiar with the Old 
Testament, is it not reasonable to suppose, that 
he used it in the same sense, in which it there 
occurs? And if he did not, would he not have 
mislead, rather than instructed his hearers? Add 
to this the fact, that they were to be cast into 
this furnace at the end of the age or Jewish pol- 
ity, and there can be no doubt of its having a 
temporal signification. 

Dr. Clarke says, the figure " weeping and 
gnashing of teeth" was borrowed from the Jew- 
ish method of celebrating nuptial festivals, which 
took place at night, and in houses splendidly il- 
luminated by lamps, torches and candles. Those 
excluded, he says, are represented as in outer 
darkness, and the shame to which they were ex- 
posed, and the cold which they suffered, are ex- 
pressed by wailing, weeping and gnashing of 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



125 



teeth. Haw forcibly ther^ do those figures rep- 
resent the punishment of apostate christians. 
They were shut out from the kingdom: they 
were in outer darkness; they ceased to enjoy gos- 
pel privileges, the kingdom of heaven was taken 
from them. Hence their suffering and shame 
are forcibly expressed by wailing, weeping and 
gnashing the teeth. This application is strength- 
ened by the fact, that the same figures are used 
in Matt. xxiv. 51, which is admitted to refer to 
the destruction of Jerusalem. This is the opin- 
ion of Pearce, Cappe and Hammond. 

Your remark that the end of the worlds can- 
not mean the end of the Jewish age, because 
tares are still among the wheat, will have no 
weight, when it is considered, that the good seed 
represented christians, and the tares apostates, 
those which were once a good seed. 

The parable had a particular application to the 
end of the Jewish age: "So shall it be at the 
end of this world," (aiori) which Pearce, Cappe 
and Clarke say, means the Jewish age. Your 
difficulty therefore, about the impossibility of 
tares becoming wheat, after being burned, is al- 
together imaginary, and founded on a false ap- 
plication of the text. 

3. Matt. xxv. 1 — 12. Here you assume that the 
coming of the bridegroom represents Christ's com- 
ing to judgment at the last day. This is refuted, 
1. By the commencement of the parable: Then 
shall the kingdom, &c This adverb must refer 
to the time of which Christ had been speaking in 
the xxiv. chap, which was his coming to destroy 
the Jews. 2. It was a representation of the 
church at Christ's coming, which in this dis* 
24* 



126 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION- 



course, he says, should be in that age. 3. Christ 
commands the disciples to watch, because they 
knew not when he would come. He gave the 
same commands in chap. xxiv. where he con- 
fines his coming to that age. 4. This parable 
was a part of our Lord's answer to the disciples' 
question, when he should come, and in this an^ 
swer, he declares it should be in that age. 

Pearce. Ver 1. f Then, i, e., at that time, and 
under those circumstances. This shows, that 
Jesus, in this chapter, is speaking on the same 
subject as in the foregoing one, viz. what was 
to happen at the destruction of the Jewish state. 
See Com. on ver. 13.' 

Ver. 1. ' Rather, wherein the Son of man is to 
come. This plainly shows, that what was said 
before in this chapter relates to the destruction 
of the Jewish state, expressed by the Son of man's 
coming, as in chap. xvi. 27, 28. Com-lin Zoc. 

8. Matt. xxv. 14—30. (Luke xix: 11—27.) 
This parable, following that of the ten virgins and 
being a part of the same discourse, unquestiona- 
bly refers to the same event. The arguments 
therefore, by which we have proved that the 
parable of the ten virgins, refers to the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, we prove that this refers to the 
same time. Whitby, an orthodox writer, ex- 
plains it thus: f The parable here, as it respects 
our Lord Christ going into a far country to re- 
ceive a kingdom, and return again, either respects 
his going to heaven to sit down at the right hand 
of God in majesty and glory, and so take posses- 
sion of his mediatory kingdom, and then return to 
punish the unbelieving and obdurate Jews; or 
going by his apostles and disciples to erect a 
kingdoirTamong the Gentjles, and then coming* 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 127 



kingdom among- the Gentiles, and then coming", 
®s it were,, back to punish the Jews, according to 
these words of his, this gospel of the kingdom 
shall be preached throughout the world for a tes- 
timony to all nations, and then shall the end [of 
the Jewish polity] come. — Matt, xxiv: 14. 

On the parallel text in Luke, Whitby says: 
*This parable doth certainly respect the Jewish 
nation, as appears, [1,] Because they are here 
said to reject Christ's ldngdom, saying, we will 
not have this man to reign over us: and upon 
this account are styled his enemies, and devoted 
to destruction by him, which agrees still only to 
the Jews, ver. 27. [2.] To them is threatened 
the punishment of the unprofitable servants, to 
wit, to be cast out into utter darkness, &c. Matt, 
viii. 12, xxii. 13, Luke xiii. 28, Matt. xxv. 30. 
In fine, it is expressly said, he therefore spake 
this parable to them, because they thought the 
kingdom of God should immediately appear, ver. 
11, and 12.' Annot. in Lnke, xix. 12. 

It will be remembered that you assume that 
this parable refers to the future state. 

9. Luke xiv. 15—24. (Matt. xxii. 2—14.) 
Here you assume, that this teaches, that this 
world is a probationary state, and that those who 
do not accept the offers of grace here, can never 
be saved. That your assumption is unfounded is 
evident, 1. Because a few verses preceding the 
parallel text, our Lord told the Jews, that the 
kingdom of heaven (the Gospel covenant) should 
be taken from them and given to a nation, (Gen- 
tiles) bringing forth the fruits thereof. This 
with other sayings greatly enraged the chief 
priests and pharisees, and they would have laid 
hands on him, but they feared the people. This, 



128 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

elicited the parable under consideration, in which 3 
is represented the offer of the Gospel to the* 
Jew^ their rejection of it,, the calling of the Gen- 
tiles, and the casting out of the Jews from the 
gospel privileges. 2. This is evident from the 
character given of those who came — they were 
the poor, maimed, lame and blind. Such were 
the Gentiles in the eye of a Jew. 3. The para- 
ble says, the king sent forth his' armies and de- 
stroyed those murderers, and burnt up their city. 
Such was literally the case with? the Jews. 
4. Many are called, but few chosen. The Jews- 
were all invited, but few chosen. The parable., 
therefore, referred to the Jews, and their de- 
struction by the Roman army. (So say Lar- 
ner, Gilpin and Whitby.) Tljey experienced the 
sad fulfilment of our Lord's words — "none of 
those which were first bidden, shall taste my 
supper." The kingdom was- taken from them, 
and they fell in judgment. What was spoken 
of them, however, related to their rejection of 
Christ and its effects* on the nation. Nothing is 
said of the future world. 

10. Luke xvi. 19 — 31. This you call a his- 
tory; therefore the rich man, a spirit, had eyes r 
hands, tongue, and was in a flame. Lazarus 
was literally in Abraham's bosom. You will 
say perhaps, all these are figurative expressions. 
Very well; then the account must be a parable; 
for it contains little or nothing literal. Your 
reasons why it is a history, will weigh nothing, 
when it is considered that the parable preceding 
this commences, precisely as this does. There 
was a certain rich man. Now apply your lan- 
guage to this, and see the result. % All pa- 
rables are founded on some common custom, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



129 



or familiar circumstance, some prevailing opin- 
ion, or some supposeable case. See for ins- 
tance, the parables of the sower,, lost sheep, 
lost piece of silver, prodigal son, unjust steward, 
&c. Now I believe that from the opinions of the 
Jews concerning hades, our Lord supposed a case 
on which he founded a parable, designed to show 
the rich, haughty, proud, selfish pharisees, who 
oppressed and persecuted the poor and humble 
christians, that the period was approaching, 
when their condition would be reversed, when 
the former would be overwhelmed in judgment, 
and the latter elevated to freedom, peace and 
joy. My limits; do not permit a defence of this 
application, and as it has but little bearing on the 
question, whether the text teaches endless mis- 
ery, I will admit, that it is a history, that a rich 
man died and went to torment. What then? 
His place of torment was hades — a place which 
no critic, of any note, believes to be a state of 
endless suffering. Besides, this is the only text, 
in the whole New Testament, where hades oc- 
curs, which is thought to teach endless wo. Not 
only so, Paul 1 Cor. xv. says, at the resurrec- 
tion we shall sing the song of victory over h ades* 
Hosea says, hades (sheol in the Hebrew) shall 
be destroyed. Then the text in question can- 
not teach endless misery. This is beyond dis- 
pute. Perhaps you will say, the great gulph 
teaches endless misery. This cannot be, for it is 
represented as being in hades; and therefore, can- 
not exist after the destruction of hades. We 
read of no such gulph of separation after the res- 
urrection. 

Should you say, the gulph must exist forever, 
for nothing is said in the text of its destruction; 



130 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION- 

I answer, then hades must exist f jrever, for noth- 
ing is said of its destruction. Then Lazarus will 
never be raised from hades; for nothing- is 
said in the text of his resurrection. 3. There 
will be no resurrection of the rich man, for the 
text says nothing- of this. Now we may as rea 
sonably assert all these, as assert that the misery 
of the rich man and the existence of the gulph are 
endless, because nothing is said of their limita- 
tion. He was speaking of hades, the state of 
man between death and the resurrection; and it 
was as unnecessary to say its misery was not 
endless as to say the pain of an eye or tooth is 
not endless. The nature of hades proved the 
limitation of its misery, the same as the nature 
of this world proves the limitation of its misery. 

11. John xv. 5, 6. Being quite tired of re- 
plying to assumptions, I will dismiss this text, 
by giving an exposition from Kenrick. f< If a 
man abide not in me, he is thrown away as a 
withered branch; that is, he will be treated as 
men treat withered branches, which they gath- 
er together and burn in the fire. This is gen- 
erally, I believe, understood to refer to the 
punishment of the wicked in another life > 
which h usually represented by fire; but, as; 
the rest of this discourse refers to the present 
life, perhaps Christ, by this language, only 
meant to express the useless and contemptible 
situation to which the apostles would be redu- 
ced, in the apprehension of the Divine Beinsr, 
by deserting their christian profession. This 
is agreeable to what he says of them under a 
different figure: ye are the salt of the earth; 
but if the salt has lost its savor, it is thence- 
forth good for nothing, but to be cast out and 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 131 



trodden under foot of men, Matt. v. 13. On 
the authority of these verses the papists have 
founded the cruel practice of burning heretics, 
rather than putting them to death any other 
way.' Epos, in loc. 

12. Jude 12. Gilpin I believe has expressed 
the true sense of this text in the following 
words: 4 They follow the examples of the very 
worst persons they find recorded in the bible 
history — the malice of Cain — the covetousness 
and seducing arts of Balaam, and the implaca- 
ble opposition of Corah. A feast of charity 
they turn into wantonness. Like unwholesome 
air, they blast wherever they come — like with- 
ered trees 3 they only encumber the ground — 
like waves they spend their rage only in foam, 
like uncertain meteors, their light soon sets in 
darkness. 

'The text says, twice dead: the apostle may 
mean, that they were once wicked Jews, and, 
having apostatized, are now wicked christians. 
Or, perhaps, he only expresses more strongly 
their deadness, as Virgil, expressing happiness, 
says — terque, quaterque beati. 5 Expos in loc. 

What is said of these men is, as apostates; and 
is descriptive of their v le and useless character. 
But it is all assumption to say, the text teaches 
their endless punishment, for not a word is said 
of a future world. 

Thus, Dear Sir , Ihave briefly considered, your 
twelve arguments; and I find that they are twelve 
assumptions! You have not, in a single instance, 
proved your application of a text! 

Your play upon certain phrases in your proof texts 
requires a passing notice. I have once in this dis- 
cussion, (Letter, No. 2.) exposed the absurdity of 
26 



132 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

such a course, in reply to a quotation, from Clarke, 
whom you have unfortunately imitated. He says 
Universalists contradict our Lord, who speaks of 
an unquenchable fire, and a worm which dieth 
not. But Isaiah uses the same language, with re- 
spect to events in this world; so that if there be 
an absurdity in our arguments, there is in the lan- 
guage of the prophets. Tares and chaff, un- 
savory salt, bad fish, foolish virgins, and a dead 
tree, are figures to represent the moral condition 
of apostates and Jews; the burning and destruc- 
tion of these, represent their destruction at the 
close of the Jewish polity. All this we have 
proved, by an appeal to scripture, and by the 
testimony of orthodox critics. Your play there- 
fore, upon these figures, is absurd in the extreme, 
because it applies to our final state, figures em- 
ployed to express a temporal judgment. As well 
might you say, prove that the worms which 
Isai. (chap. lxvi. 24.) called undying, are still 
living, and the fire which he calls unquenchable 
is still burning, and I will believe the Bible, as 
to make the request you have. One would be a 
no greater perversion of figures than the other. 
God says, (Ezek. xxii. 18.) that the house of 
Israel had become dross in the midst of the fur- 
nace, and that they should be melted in his 
wrath. He also says, (Mai. iv. 1.) tfeat they 
should be burnt up root and branch. Paul says, 
(Rom. xi) that they were branches broken off 
from the true olive tree. Now here are figures, 
equally as expressive as those, in your proof 
texts; but they simply refer to events in this 
world. Until therefore, you can show, that this 
burning and destruction refer to future torment,- 
your play upon these figures, must be regarded as 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



133 



a mere superficial turn, having" no bearing" on 
the real question. The same is true of your re- 
mark on the great gulph. Prove its existence in 
the resurrection state or its endless existence, 
and then you will meet the point in dispute, and 
not till then. I am quite tired of assumptions, 
and this playing around the question. 

In conclusion, I will glance at the wide dif- 
ference, between the nature of the proofs, on 
which partialisms rets and those on which Uni- 
versalism rests. The former are ambiguous 
words, dark figurative expressions and parables, 
which some of the most noted orthodox writers 
explain in perfect accordance with Universalism. 
The latter are plain, unequivocal, literal decla- 
rations of holy writ, harmonizing with all the at- 
tributes of God. Of the former, we have a spe- 
cimen in your letter, and for a specimen of the 
latter, see the following: And I, if I be lifted up 
from the earth, will draw all men unto me (John 
xii. 32.) For as by one man's disobedience, 
many were made sinners, so by the obedience of 
one shall many be made righteous. (Rom. v. 20.) 
And we have seen and do testify that the Father 
sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. 
(1. John iv. 14.) Having made known unto us 
the mystery of his will according to his good 
pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself, 
that in the dispensation of the fulness of times, 
he might gather together in one, all things in 
Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are 
on earth even in him. (Eph. .1. 9, 10.) Here 
are no parables, no ambiguous terms, no figura- 
tive expressions. The language is plain and lit- 
eral. Now if all men are drawn to Christ and 
made righteous, if Christ be the Savior of the 
26* 



134 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION- 



world, and if all things are gathered together in 
him, endless misery, cannot be the doctrine of 
Revelation, unless Revelation be contradictory. 
I remain very respectfully your obe't. s'vt. 

Otis A. Skinner. 



LETTER No. VIII. 
Baltimore, Dec. 18, 1834. 
To Rev Otis A. Skinner: v 

Dear Sir, — I think it expedient to make 
a few historical remarks respecting the rise 
and progress of Universaiism, for the purpose 
of enabling the reader to form a more compre- 
hensive view of the subject under investiga- 
tion. 

Origen, a native of Alexandria, born in 
the year 185, was the first man who embrac- 
ed and propagated the doctrine of a universal 
restoration, of whom any written account has 
been transmitted to us. This man, who may 
be considered the father of the Universalists, 
was one of the most extravagant fanatics that 
ever troubled the world. Every one, ac- 
quainted with the history of his times, must 
be aware that he was the first who denied 
the fire of hell to be real and literal. He stre- 
nuously maintained the doctrine of the trans- 
migration of souls from one body to another; 
that Christ would die in a future world for the 
redemption of devils; that the sun, moon and 
stars, had rational souls, and that all bodies 
after the resurrection should be of a round fi- 
gure. He understood those words of our Lord: 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION- 135 



"some men make themselves eunuchs for the 
kingdom of heaven's sake" in a literal sense, 
and" followed them to the letter, lest he 
should ever become guilty of any improprie- 
ties, arising from the propensities of the flesh. 
He was at length excommunicated from the 
christian church, by Demetrius, bishop of A- 
lexandria, as an egregious heretic. Such are 
some of the prominent features in the charac- 
ter of the man, who first, propagated the here- 
sy of Universalism. Some affirm, with great 
confidence, that the serpent in Paradise was 
the first preacher of Universalism, where God 
said to our ancestors, "in the day thou eatest 
thereof, thou shaft surely die' 5 ; the serpent 
said they should not die, but live, and become 
wise into the bargain. God has said by the 
mouth of the apostle Paul, that the adulterer 
shall not inherit the kingdom of God; but the 
Universalists say he shall, and will mherit 
that celestial world. Hence, the coincidence 
between the doctrine of the serpent, and that 
of Universalism is manifest. 

The commencement of Universalism, as 
an organized sect, may be traced to England 
and to the days of Wesley and Whitfield. — 
James RelJy, a Whitfieldite preacher, dissa- 
tisfied with the Calvinistic doctrines of Whit- 
field, left his communion and gathered a con- 
gregation in London, to which he preached 
the future happiness of all men as the glory 
and essence of the gospel. This congregation 
is still in existence, and holds communion with 
four or five other congregations in England. 
This was the beginning of Universalism as a 
sect. 

Among the followers of Relly was John 



135 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



Murray, an Irishman by birth, and a Metho- 
dist by education. This man, after his con- 
version to Universalism, embarked for Ame- 
rica, and in 1770 arrived in this countr} 7 . He 
preached first at Cranberry, New Jersey, then 
in New York and Philadelphia, and soon af- 
ter made his way into New England. In 
Gloucester, Mass. he found a lew who were 
acquainted with the writings of Relly, and 
had embraced his faith; these he collected in- 
to a society, of which he was pastor. He died 
in Boston, 1815. 

About the year 1780, Elhanan Winches- 
ter, a baptist minister in Philadelphia, began 
to preach the doctrine of a final restoration, 
and soon drew after him a considerable part 
of the congregation to a separate place of 
worship. Six years afterwards, he* went to 
England and formed a congregation in Lon- 
don, which is now numbered among the U- 
nitarian Churches of that country. He re- 
turned to the United States in 1794, and con- 
tinued to itinerate till his death, which occur- 
red in Hartford in 1797. 

Murray and Winchester are generally ac- 
knowledged as the founders of Universalism 
in the United States. Of the two, Winches- 
ter was the more learned, and the more sin- 
cere; there is a spirit of sincerity and rever- 
ence for God and truth observable through- 
out his works, which I never apprehended in 
the works of any other Universalist. 

Since the days of Winchester, several cham- 
pions for Universalism have appeared, who 
have used all the sophistry they could com- 
mand, in defence of the heresy under consi- 
deration. Among these may be ranked Dr. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 137 



Huntington, who wrote a posthumous book 
entitled "Calvinism Improved"; Dr. Chaun- 
cy, who published his "Salvation of all men''; 
Hosea Ballou, who published "Select Ser- 
mons, "Atonement," &c; Mr. Balfour, who 
published his "first and second inquiry," "re 
ply to Stuart," &c; and Mr. Whittemore 
who published -notes on the parables, to teach 
the world their true signification. Of all these 
oracles of Universalism, it may be fearlessly 
stated, that no two of them agree on any 
point but one, viz: that the punishment of 
the wicked is not endless! Murray said in a let- 
ter to a friend^ that according to Winchester's 
doctrine, every man must finally be his own 
.saviour. If I must sutler as much, in my own 
person, as will satisfy divine justice, how is, 
•or how can Jesus Christ be, my Saviour? 
Winchester believed the doctrine of future pun- 
ishment. Some of the leading heresiarchs 
of the present day deny that there is any pun- 
ishment in a future state of existence. Some 
deny the doctrine of the Trinity, the divinity 
and sacrificial death of Christ. These senti- 
ments may be found in Mr. Ballou's works. 
Mr. Whittemore denies the existence of good 
and evil angels; and Mr. Balfour the immor- 
tality of the soul. And according to the 
-"Christian Spectator" (vol. v. No. n. for 
1833,) the great mass of the Universalists de- 
ny nearly all the essential doctrines of Chris- 
tianity, and hold an assemblage of not mere - 
ly negative errors, but an accumulation of po- 
sitive falsehoods, including nearly all the gen- 
eral principles of enmity and opposition to the 
kingdom of Christ. Such is the history of 
the rise and progress or Universalism, and if 



138 THEOLOGCIAL DISCUSSION. 



the reader is desirous of further information 
on the subject, I refer him to Murray's Jife, 
Mod. Hist, of Universalism, "Christian Spec- 
tator, 7 ' and the authors already mentioned. 

Having made these preliminary remarks, I 
shall proceed to a farther investigation ol the 
term Gehenna. As we agree respecting the 
derivation of this word, nothing remains to 
be examined but its use in the New Testa- 
ment. In my fourth ietier I stated that it 
related to future punishment in all the twelve 
places where it occurred in the New Testa- 
ment. And in proof of this application of the 
word, I cited the Targums, Josephus, and 
Parkhurst; and showed that the passages of 
scripture, where it occurred, required this ap- 
plication of the word. All these proofs, I 
c onsider remain ia their full force, unaffected 
by any thing you have said in reply. I did 
think you had something more plausib'e to 
urge in favour of your opinion, but I find no- 
thing that has the appearance of argument. 
You say the Targums were written at the 
close of the third century. Dr. Clarke says 
two of them were written about the time of 
Christ; consequently, they show evidently, 
how the Jews of our Saviour's time under- 
stood the word Gahenna. 

I was not a little surprised to find you as- 
sert that my quotation from Josephus was 
universally considered the work of some Chris- 
tian writer, of the second or third century. — 
This is an assertion without the least shadow 
of proof, and must, consequently, go for no- 
thing. But, if the quotation in question was 
written by a christian, of that age, as you as- 
sert, it would answer my purpose much bet- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 189 

ter; for, instead of proving that the Jews un- 
derstood the terms fire and worms to mean 
endless punishment, it would prove that the 
primitive christians, who had their informa- 
tion direct from Christ and his apostles, under- 
stood fire and worms to signify endless misery, 
and therefore be a positive proof that I am 
right in my exposition of the term Gehenna. 

I shall now lay before you some additional 
testimonies, from some of the most learned 
men in church or state, in favour of my inter- 
pretation of Gehenna. 

Dr. Campbell, in his preliminary desserta- 
tions, says, "That Gehenna is employed in 
the New Testament to denote the place of 
future punishment, prepared for the devil and 
his angels, is indisputable. W e do not find 
this place mentioned in this manner in the Old 
Testament. The word does not occur in the 
Septeuagint. It is not a Greek word, conse- 
quently not to be found in the Greek classics. 
It occurs in the Greek Testament twelve times. 
In ten of these there can be no doubt: in the 
other two the expression is figurative; but 
scarcely will admit a question, that the figure 
is taken from the state of misery which awaits 
the impenitent. Wkios gehennes, a child of 
hell, is equivalent in signification, with the 
expressions whios diabolou, son of the devil, 
whios apolias, son of perdition. In the other 
passage, u set onjire of heW 1 the meaning is 
evident. These two cannot be considered as 
exceptions, it being the manifesi intention of 
the writers in both to draw an illustration of 
the subject from that state of perfect wretch- 
edness." 

Mr. Joseph Mede says, "Hence this place 



140 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



(the Valley of Hinnom) so execrable, came 
to signify the place of the damned." 

Dr. Scott, in his commentary, says, "The 
word (Gehenna) is frequently used in the 
New Testament, and always for hell, or the 
place of final punishment and misery." 

Grove, in his Greek and English Dictiona- 
ry, says, "Gehenna (the valley of Hinnom) 
hell, hell-fire, torments of hell." 

Schrevelius says "Gehenna — locus suppli- 
ciorum seternorim," the place of eternal la- 
mentation. 

Bass explains Gehenna by "the valley of 
Hinnom," hell. 

Donnegan defines it as follows: — Gehenna, 
a Hebrew word, New Testament, torture, 
punishment, hell. 

Webster says, "This word ( Gehenna) has 
been used by the Jews as equivalent to hell, 
place of fire or torment and punishment, and 
the Greek word is rendered by our translators 
by hell, and hell-fire." 

Mr. Williams, editor of the Cottage Bible, 
sa}^s, "The valley south of Jerusalem, infa- 
mous for its idolatrous services, was called 
Gehenna, and made a type of hell." 

To these I may add the testimony of Dr. 
Clarke, Dr. Whitby and Dr. Doddridge. 

I have produced these twelve witnesses to 
let the reader see the weight of testimony in 
favour of my exposition of Gehenna. And, 
furthermore, I will say that, if you will pro- 
duce one half the number of commentators 
and lexicographers who have said, in plain 
terms, that Gehenna^ in the New Testament, 
does not signify future punishment, I will give 
up the argument so far as this word is con- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 141 



nected with it. But this you cannot do; for I 
suppose tiiere is not one writer of character or 
reputation ever said any such thing. 

I said in my fourth letter that the sense of 
the scriptures, where the word occurs, re- 
quires it to be understood of future misery; 
and this will be manifest to the attentive read- 
er who will consider the connexion of the 
places where the word is used. When our 
Lord threatened the wicked with the punish- 
ment of Gehenna, he added as an equivalent 
expression to deepen the impression on the 
mind, "into the fire that never shall be 
quenched," "where their worm dieth not, and 
the fire is not quenched," Mark ix. 43 — 45. 
You wish to convince me that the never dy- 
ing worm will die, and the unquenchable fire 
shall be quenched, by referring me to certain 
texts in the Old Testament, where the "un- 
quenchable fire" was used in reference to the 
things of this world. Now, in reply, I would 
feay, 1. The phrase "unquenchable fire," in 
those instances, signified that the fire would 
continue to burn so long as the fuel or subjects 
of burning continued to exist. It is true the 
fires became extinct, but not till all the fuel 
was entirely exhausted, so that it never after- 
wards, in any instance, returned to its original 
state. 2. The phrase when applied to a fu- 
ture state of existence as it unquestionably is, 
in the above cited places, must mean endless, 
because fuel never can be entirely exhausted 
or consumed. 
As I consider your exposition of the phrase 
> "kill the body" absurd in the extreme, I shall 
place in justaposition, the parallel texts where 



142 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



the phrase occurs, that I may give it a tho- 
rough investigation, and thereby present it in 
its true signification. 

Matth. x, 28. Luke xn. 4, 5. 

And fear not them Be not afraid of 
which kill the body, them that kill the bo- 
but are not able to kill dy, and after that, 
the soul; but rather have no more that 
fear him which is a- they can do. 
ble to destroy both But I forewarn you 
soul and body in hell, whom you shall fear; 
( Gehenna.) fear him, which after 

he hath killed, hath 
power to cast into hell. 
( Gehenna.) 

Respecting these texts it may be observed, 
1. That they contain a most solemn warning, 
given by our Saviour, concerning the true 
object of fear. 2. Two objects of fear are men- 
tioned — God and man. 3. God is to be fear- 
ed as much above man, as the soul is supe- 
rior to the body, and as the power of God is a- 
bove that of man. 4. Man's power is limit- 
ed; he can only kill the body, he cannot in- 
jure the soul. But God's power is unlimited, 
therefore he can not only kill the body, but 
cast both soul and body into hell at the day of 
judgment. Now I think nothing in all the 
world can be clearer, or prove more fully that 
Gehenna signifies future misery, than these 
texts. What man, or what temporal fire 
could affect, or injure an immortal soul? Cer- 
tainly no man, no temporal fire. But the Al- 
mighty God, at the last day, can cast both 
soul and body into hell, which he has declar- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 143 



ed he will do, to ali the finally impenitent. — 
You leap over this text by saying that apoktei- 
no, "to kill," should be rendered ro torture, to 
afflict. Who ever heard of such a translation 
of this word before! Parkhurst says the word 
is derived from apo, intensitive, and kteino, to 
kill, and signifies, to kill, murder, butcher. — 
Bass says it signifies, to kill, destroy, murder, 
butcher, consequently the present translation 
of the word is perfectly correct. The word 
psuche, rendered soul, you say means animal 
life. Parkhurst shows that it has nine signi- 
fications in the scriptures, and refers to Matth. 
x. 28, one of the texts in question, where it 
signifies <r the human soul or spirit, as distin- 
guished from the body." Now, as I have 
cleared this text, by the authority of so great 
a man as Parkhurst, from the gloss you put 
upon' it, to turn aside its force which is levelled 
directly against your system, I shall consider 
another error into which you have fallen, con- 
cerning the power ot the Jews to take away 
life. You say the Jews had no power to 
take away life. This is true in a certain sense. 
They had no power to take away life for secu- 
lar offences, or offences against the state; nei- 
ther could they crucify, which was a Roman 
method of punishment. This political or 
kingly power was taken from them when Ju- 
dea became a Roman province. But they 
retained the power to take away life by burn- 
ing and stoning for ecclesiastical offences, or 
offences committed against the church. To 
this ecclesiastical power Pilate referred, when 
he said to the Jews, take him and judge him 
according to your law. The Jews replied, it 
is not lawful for us to put any man to death, 
27 



THEOLOGICAL TISCUSSION. 



144 



thereby indicating that they charged him with 
offences against the slate, and not against the 
church. This accorded with the saying of Je- 
sus, signifying what death he should die, 
when he said they would deliver him to the 
Gentiles tocrucify him, Matth. xx. 19. That 
the Jews still retained the power of killing 
tor ecclesiastical offences' is evident from the 
fact oi their killing several persons. They 
stoned Stephen to death, not in a riotous out- 
rage, as some suppose, but by a regular mode 
of procedure, Acts vn. They stoned Ben 
Sarda at Lydda. Uieros, Sanhed, fol. 25, 4. 
They burned the priest's daughter alive that 
had been, taken in the act of adultery, Rob. 
Sanfted, fol. 52, 1. These historical facts 
show that the Jews retained the power of 
punishing ecclesiastical offences with burning 
and stoning. For a more detailed account oi 
this matter the reader is referred to Dr. Clarke 
and Dr. Ligkifoot, on John, xvin. 32. 

I wish it to be distinctly understood that I 
consider the use of Gehenna in the twelve 
places where it occurs in the Ne w Testament, 
as an unanswerable argument against the 
doctrine of Universaiism; however, I leave 
the reader to judge in this case. 

Your saying that Gehenna was a place oi 
punishment to which the Je ws, and not the 
Gentiles, were exposed, reminds me of the 
law T of retaliation. The Jews considered 
themselves the children of heaven, while they 
devoted the Gentiles to a total destruction. — 
You being a Gentile, by way of retaliation, 
say the punishment of Gehenna was for Jews, 
and not for Gentiles. It was remarked, that 
the Europeans paint the devil black, while 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 145 

the Ethiopians, in return, paint him white. — 
The Jews believe in the endless punishment 
of the wicked. Whence had they this infor- 
mation? Certainly from the prophets and the 
holy scriptures. 

There is one palpable contradiction in your 
fourth letter. You say the Jews had no 
power to take away life; and you say the de- 
struction in Gehenna is for Jews only. Now, 
I will give you your choice of two things; if 
you say the Jews hed no power to k .11, it is 
certain they could not burn any person in Ge- 
henna — therefore the destruction in Gehenna 
is in a future state. If you say they had pow- 
er to kill, then they are not to be feared as 
they can only kill the body; but God can cast 
both into Gehenna or endless misery in a fu- 
ture state. Take which side you please. 
I am, your's, &c. 

Joseph McKee. 



LETTER No. VIII. 
Baltimore, Jan. 17, 1835. 

To Rev. Joseph McKee: — 

Dear Sir, — Whitfield once remarked, 
while preaching, that if sinners would wan- 
der to the devil, he must wander after them. 
And as you in your historical remarks, have 
entirely wandered from the great point in 
dispute, I am compelled to wander alter you, 
in order to correct some of your erroneous 
statements. 
28 



146 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION- 



1. You say Origen was the first Universa- 
list. This is a great mistake. The Basili- 
dians, Carpocratians and Valentinians, held 
the sentiment; and though they were styled 
heretics, and their systems were often attack- 
ed by the orthodox, their sentiments respect- 
ing the restoration were never called in ques- 
tion. Universalism is advocated in the Si- 
byline Oracles, a work published about the 
year 150, to convert heathens to the Gospel. 
The renowned and illustrious Clemens Alex- 
andrinus, the teacher of Alexander, bishop 
of Jerusalem, and of the celebrated Origen, was 
a Universalist. He was distinguished for 
his extensive acquaintance with history, poe- 
try, philosophy, mythology and the scrip- 
tures. He died in the year 217. Thus we 
find Universalism very prevalent, before the 
days of Origen; and before we find the eter- 
nity of misery advocated by a single writer. 
Tertullian, a mau severe, morose, superstitious 
and fanatical — a man who said he should ad- 
mire, laugh, exult and rejoice, when he saw 
kings groaning in the lowest abyss of dark- 
ness, is supposed to have been the first chris- 
tian who asserted that misery will be of equal 
duration with happiness. The first censure 
ever passed upon Universalism was in the 
year 394. And even this related not to the 
salvation of man, but of devils; and after it 
many advocated with impunity the salvation 
of all men. Indeed the doctrine continued to 
spread and to receive the undivided support 
of many of the bishops and ministers, and a 
large portion of the laity, until crushed by the 
buffs of popes. Controversy could not check 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 147 



its onward course; learning and criticism could 
not put it to flight. No! These were the ele- 
ments in which it flourished, the means by 
which it achieved its conquests. Nothing but 
banishing its advocates and burning their pro- 
ductions could put it down. 

2. Your remarks on Origen are illiberal and 
unjust in the extreme; for instead of being an 
extravagant fanatic, he stood unrivalled as 
an interpreter of the Bible, as a defender of 
Christianity, as a scholar, a christian and a 
philosopher. Like all of the christian fathers, 
he was in some respects visionary; but for 
one, I would as soon believe with him in the 
transmigration of souls, as with Wesley in 
the salvation of beasts, or with Clarke, that 
the ghost of Samuel appeared to Saul. Mo- 
sheim says, "Origen surpassed all others in 
dilligence and assiduity, and that his famous 
Hexapla, though almost entirely destroyed by 
the waste of time, will even in its fragments, 
remain an eternal monument of the incredi- 
ble application with which that great man, 
laboured to remove those obstacles, which 
retarded the progress of the Gospel." He 
also says, "Origen had an undoubted right, 
to the first place among the interpreters of 
the Scriptures in his age." Such was Origen 
with all his errors, according to Mosheim. 

Eusebius gives him the same character, 
represents him as the most learned and pious, 
as the greatest and most industrious man of 
his age; and as having exerted an unbounded 
influence in the Church. Ministers and peo- 
ple flocked to his meetings; Bishops attended 
him wherever he went; and some of the most 



148 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION- 

distinguished were his pupils. Could he then 
have been that wretched fanatic which you 
represent? So far from this, his name is a 
monument of ^lory to our faith — a monument 
which will stand in undiminished strength, 
ages after the last fragment of our productions 
shall have been consigned to oblivion. 

3. You say, that he was excommunicated 
as an "egregious heretic/' by the Council at 
Alexandria. Such is not the tact. Eusebius 
and Mosheim both certify, that Demetrius 
obtained his degradation from the sacerdotal 
office to appease his resentment and gratify 
his envy and hatred; and that he urged a- 
gainst him an act, which for years he had 
applauded, and which was done while Ori- 
gen was but a youth. Besides, Origen's ex- 
communication met the highest displeasure 
of the bishops of Achaia,Palestine, Phoenecia 
and Arabia. So much for his "egregious 
heresy." 

4. You sav, the serpent was the first 
preacher of Universalism. This is a vulgar 
saying, unworthy a place in an honorable 
discussion. To test its truth, let us com- 
pare the serpent's preaching with partial- 
ism and universalism. The former teaches, 
that God threatened Adam with endless 
punishment, but that the threatening was 
not executed; the latter teaches, that he 
threatened him with spiritual death, and that 
he did die on the day he transgressed. Now 
which agrees with the serpent's preaching. — 
Did Adam, in the day he transgressed, go to 
an endless hell? Did he ever go to such a 
hell? If not, and partialists rightly define the 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 149 

threatening, the serpent preached the truth; 
it come to pass as he said. Adam did not 
die. Say with Universalists, that God threat- 
ened a spiritual death, and the difficulty is at 
once removed; for such a death Adam did ex- 
perience, in the very day he sinned. 

Your remarks on Paul's declaration, that 
"the unrighteous shall not inherit the king- 
dom of God,'' are uncandid and unjust: and 
they betray a sense of the weakness of your 
own cause. Do you not believe, that the un- 
righteous can be regenerated? And do not 
Universalists believe that all the unrighteous 
will be regenerated? Then why throw at us, 
the false charge, of teaching, that people are 
to be saved in sin? 

There are several other errors, in what you 
are pleased to dignify, as historical remarks, 
that serve to show your ignorance of our or- 
der, and that should admonish you to be cau- 
tious in giving the history of another's creed. 
The most prominent of these, is the state- 
ment, that among what you sneeringly call 
the oracles of Universalism, no two agree on 
any point, save one. This is too absurd to 
require contradicton. But suppose such were 
the fact: Did I not show, in letter No. 1, great- 
er, far greater differences of faith among par- 
tialists than Universalists? When you have 
answered that, it will be time to refer again, 
to the shades of difference in our works. 

In the Letter before me, you repeatedly de- 
nounce Universalism as heresy. Besides all 
this, you quote from the Christian Spectator, to 
prove that it is a heresy, a system of falsehood, 
including nearly all the general principles of 
29 



150 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

enmity and opposition to the kingdom of 
Christ — and thus it is you treat the subject. 
I call for argument, and you give a confused 
and false history of Uni^ersalism; 1 call for 
scripture proof, and 1 am met with the cry of 
heresy, backed up by the Christian Specta- 
tor. And what, pray tell me, has all this to 
do with the question? 

Having thus considered your historical re- 
marks, I will proceed to an examination of 
your arguments on Gehenna. Although you 
have said, that I have advanced nothing 

Slausible, and that your arguments of letter 
Jo. lv. still remain in their full force, it will 
be perceived, that you have passed in silence 
a great portion of my letter, and have not at- 
tempted to refute the proofs, by which I hav- 
ehown that Gehenna has no reference to fu- 
ture woe: and yet you say, I have proved no- 
thing. This sir, is quite a summary way oi 
settling points, and it serves to fill up a letter, 
when argument is wanting. 

L The Targums. — On the authority of 
Jahn I stated, that these were written at the 
close of the third century. To his testimony 
I will now add that of Eichhorn, Bertholdtand 
Bauer; who have come to this conclusion, 
from their style, fables, perversions of prophe- 
cies concerning Christ, and from the silence 
of the early Jews and christian fathers re- 
specting them. Consequently they do not 
shew how Gehenna was understood in the 
times of our Saviour. 

2. On the authority of a Boston work, in 
which I have full confidence. I stated that the 
piece entitled, discourse concerning Hades in 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



151 



^Whiston's e;litioii of Josephus, was unive r - 
sai^y? consider e J the work of some christian 
writer a: jthe cl >se of the second or beginning 
ol the third century, li' you -deny this, I will 
obtain t.ie proof. How admitting the passage 
an interpolation j it would ans wer youir pur- 
pose inn- li fetter, I am unable to conceive; 
lor ho w do:- s the opinion of a christian in the 
third century, prove the prevailing opinion in 
tj^e days. of Christ] As wed might you say, 
the wild reveries ol the JJphilc of jJaniabas 
were dictated or Christ and his apostles, as 
to say, rh.it m 1 s iniimej&ts of christians in the 
third century were, 

. 3. Your array of names to sustain your de- 
finition of d.-eheuna, may irmuence the super- 
ficial reader, but they certainly do not meet 
the question. Suppose I should bring twelve 
w liters equal in Learning and talents to those 
you naue quoted, who are agreed in teaching 
the doctrine of reprobation; and the final per- 
severance ol the saints, would you consider 
this satisfactory pro fof these doctrines? The 
writers to which you refer, though men of 
learning.- are but men. and their opinions are 
to he received u furt _er than they accord with 
revelation. To the law and to the testimony, 
our a]: peal must be made. From these, I 
will produce t*v ?lve facts, that must weigh as 
much in the sc es of truth, as the opinions of 
twelve partialis is. 

ment to signify future woe. 2. Jeremiah, 
(vn.29 — 34; xix. 4 — leu) uses it fgurativejy 
tp represent the destruct-on of Jerusalem; and 
fiis representation Jiad a literal luiahnent at 



152 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



the time Jerusalem was destroyed by the Ro- 
mans, when human bodies were meat for 
fowls and beasts, parents a A e the : - children, 
and they buried in T ophet or Gehenna, till 
there was no place. 3. The early disciples 
were Jews, and must have understood Ge- 
henna in the sense of the prophets. 4. No 
explanation was ever niven by our Lord, to 
show, that he used it differently from the pro- 
phets; and if he did he must have misled his 
hearers. 4. The Jews, when threatened with 
the damnation of Gehenna, are told, in the 
same discourse, that it shall come on that ge- 
neration. 6. What the Saviour, Matth. x. 
23, represents by Gehenna, he expresses in 
verse 39, by the phrase losing the life. 7. In 
the same chapter he declares, that, the time 
(verse 23) should be before the disomies had 
gone over the cities of Israel, or when the 
Mm of man should come, thus showing, that 
le referred to the destruction of Jerusalem. — 
J. In every case where the disciples are warn- 
ed of Gehenna, they are tdd that their whole 
bodies should be destroyed. Nov; why was this, 
if a spiritual punishment were intended? 9. 
The word Gehenna is found only twelve times 
l the New Testament, once addressed to 
r ews, twice in a sense which none consider 
> teach endless woe, and the rest of the times, 
u is addressed to the disciples. It was not 
however nine times addressed to them: pro- 
bably not more than five times, for the Evan- 
gelists all recorded the same discourse. There- 
fore, either Christ preached too little about 
hell, or Ministers now preach too much. 10. 
The Jewish sects of our Lord's day, did not 



represent future punishment by the emblem 
of fire; and as this is the sense in which Ge- 
henna is always used in the Targums and 
christian writers, it could not have been used 
by our Lord to represent future woe. 11. 
John, who wrote his gospel for the Gentiles, 
never mentions Gehenna. 12. Paul, Peter 
and Luke, are also silent respecting it. Why 
was this, if it represented future torment? 

Here sir, are twelve facts which have ne- 
ver yet been answered. Most of them are 
contained in my fourth letter; but you have 
found it convenient to give them no reply. — 
Doubtless such will be the case in this in- 
stance; but as they are an array, quite as for- 
midable as your twelve commentators, I must 
hold them up for consideration. 

You say when our Lord threatened the 
wicked with the punishment of Gehenna, he 
added as an equivalent expression to deepen 
the impression on the mind, "into the fire 
that never shall be quenched, where their 
worm dieth not. and the fire is not quenched." 
In replv to this, I will observe, 

1. Christ never addressed this language to 
the wicked, but to his disciples. He only 
once threatened sinners with the punishment 
of Gehenna; and in that case, he added no- 
thing respecting the fire and worm. How 
will you reconcile this with the idea, that an 
endless hell was intended? And how different 
is this from the present popular method of 
preaching hell-fire! Now, it is preached al- 
together to sinners; but then whatever was 
intended by it, was addressed to the disciples. 

2. The adding of the phrases, " where their 



154 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



worm dieth not and the fire is not. quenched," 
is an argument against your application of the 
text, rather than in its favour, Tnh is evi- 
" ddw, because; [saiah (.lxvi. 24*) represents tne 
destruction of the Jews uaier tfie suae ii- 
gures; and our Lor J using it m _ Jar : v ix. is 
the strongest proof th.it could be given, of his 
having reference to the saoie event. is.daiVs 
•pv^ die: ion was ikeraiiy fulfilled^ at the detrac- 
tion of Jerusalem; annas fcae oaviour uses 
the sanie language, and- minxes to the bo-ay, 
like the prophet, he .. . .r it doafat reiers to 
the same destruction. As tliereibj e ©m Lord's 
language had no re: ere nee to inTurdy, the tire 
of wa;on he speaks can no nir£e be endless, 
than theone of -which the >ro»jhet speaks, for 
"there is Nothing to feed it. 5 _._'enee we see, 
that the p Si rases under consiier-dion, are as 
you an 1 mil, equivalent to Gr-nrnna, and that 
both are anphed by inspired i nopkeig, to the 
destruction of Jerusalem. 1 has, therefore, 
our Saviour used them. 

5. Concerning the two texts, which you 
have placed fenijuxtaposili a, I will remark, 
1. Luke say* not him? oi cas.ing the spirit in- 
to hell; ana in all ... t places which . speak of 
Gehenna, nothing is said of punishing the 
spirit, but the body is mentioned. Thus Luke 
says, fear him wY ^:er he hath killed the 
body, hath powe >r (thefeody) into Ge- 

henna. So Matthe> s;^-s. desapoy Uoth soul 
(life) anil body in l- - in. 1-ebenna 
had long been a place ; here the filth of Je- 
rusalem we* " : w . . here criminals were 
executed, a: . 1 wr rr- dead bodies we;e penni - 
ted to lie i; uric ::. This explains our Lord's 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 155 

language, cast the body into Gehenna, de- 
stroy the body in Gehenna: that is, leave it 
unburied, exposed to beasts, birds and worms, 
where the worm did not die and the fire was 
not quenched. This men could not do, for 
sympathy and respect for the dead would pre- 
vent it; public sentiment would not allow so 
shameless a violation of ccmmon feeling. But 
in the terrible judgment which God was about 
to bring upon that people, they would be de- 
stroyed soul (life) and body in Gehenna. — 
After they were killed, they would be cast in- 
to Gehenna. Such, according to Josephus, 
was the case with thousands; for in the siege 
of Jerusalem, the living and dead were thrown 
into Gehenna, where they remained a prey 
to fire, worms and beasts. Viewed in this 
light, the mention of casting the body into 
Gehenna, and of destroying it there, showed 
the terrible nature of the impending judgment. 

3. In the two chapters of Matthew and Luke, 
from which the texts you have placed in jux- 
taposition are taken, it is expressly said, that 
those should lose their lives, that did not fol- 
low Christ, while those should sare their lives, 
that did follow him; and to impress this more 
deeply upon the mind, Jesus reminds them 
of his coming to destroy Jerusalem, when 
punishment would be inflicted on his enemies. 

4. Gehenna was the figure to represent this 
punishment. This I nave quite fully illus- 
trated in my fourth letter. 5. The same word 
rendered life in Matth. chap. x. 39, (lose his 
life) is the one rendered life in Matth. x. 28, 
and Luke xn. 4, 5. Now as both reter to 
the same event, it is evident that the (psuche) 



156 THEOLOGCIAli DISCUSSION. 

life or soul is the same in both. The opi- 
nion of Parkhurst will not answer as a reply- 
to this. 

For these reasons I must say, that it is clear 
as noon-day to me, that in the texts under 
consideration, our Lord had no reference to 
the future world. And as all the passages 
where Gehenna occurs are silent respecting 
punishing the spirit, I do think you must yield 
the point. 

5. Your remarks on apokteino (kill) require 
but a passing notice. My criticism i« met by 
a sneer and denounced as a gloss. I am told 
too that Parkhurst, Grove and Bass, are a- 
gainst me. But such is not the case. Park- 
hurst says that apokteino is used figuratively; 
and refers to Rom. vn. 11; 2 Cor. in. 6, as 
instances. The Lexicons of Grove and 
Bass I have not before me, but Donnegan, 
who is certainly as good authority, says, it 
means, "to torture, torment, render miserable 
or wretched." In justification of this definition, 
let us observe, 1. That when it is said, God is 
able to destroy soul and body, a different word 
(apolesai not apokteino) is used. This word sig- 
nifies death in all the following places: Matth. 
ii. 13; xvin. 20; Mark xi. 18; John x. 10; 
Mark iv. 38. It is a general word for death 
and the destruction of a thing. See Matth. 
ix. 17; Heb. i. 11. Now why was this dif- 
ferent word used, if apokteino here signified to 
put to death? 2. jlpollesas is the word used to 
express the loss of life, in a verse (39) follow- 
ing the one (Matth. x. 28) which says, God 
is able to destroy soul and body. This shows, 
that what is meant by losing the life, in verse 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 157 



39 , is meant by God's d estroying the life (soul) 
in verse 28. . Hence, apokteino could not 
have been used, to signify death. My criticism 
therefore is just— Fear not those who will 
torture or scourge you; but fear God who will 
destroy you with the Jews. 

6. What you have written respecting the 
power of the Jews to take life, does not meet 
the question. You say they had power to 
take it for certain offences. But of this you 
have given no proof. You refer me to Clarke, 
but he says it is only probable, that they had 
this power. You say, Stephen was stoned 
by a regular procedure; Clarke says, it was 
done tumultuously. By turning to Acts vn. 
you will see, that he was killed in a riotous 
manner. I must therefore, still believe, what 
the Jews said to Pilate, "that. it. was not lawful 
for them to take the life of a???/ man." 

Had I not already extended this letter to a 
sufficient length, I would present some addi- 
tional proofs in favor of the position taken re- 
specting the power of the Jews. I will how- 
ever observe, 1. That though it is said (Luke 
xi. 49) they would slay prophets and apos- 
tles, kill and crucify them (Matth. xx. 34) it 
does not follow that they had power to do this; 
for in all countries when death is inflicted, it 
is ascribed to the prosecutor and jud £e. Thus 
the Jews are said to have crucified Christ, 
though it was done by the Romans. In like 
manner it is said, the brother shall betray the 
brother to death, and the father the son, and 
children shall cause their parents to be put to 
death. But it was never legal according to 
any constitution in the world, for children to 



158 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

put their parents to death. This language 
then signifies, that they would procure the 
death of their parents. 2. The Roman Law- 
yers, as quoted by Lardner, state, that the 
power of lite and death was not in the hands 
of the Jews. , 

7. The last paragraph but one in your let- 
ter, contains a strange medley, which I con- 
fess my inability to understand. You have 
jumbled together, the law of retaliation, the 
colour of European and Ethiopian devils, and 
an assertion that the Jews derived the doc- 
trine of endless misery from the Old Testa- 
ment. All this is a reply to that trouble- 
some fact, which you have so often attempted 
to answer, viz. that none but Jews and those 
connected with their nation, were ever threat- 
ened with Gehenna. 

8. In your last paragraph I am accused of 
a palpable contradiction. Not quite so fast. 
My position is, that Gehenna was a figure of 
the punishment, which God would inflict up- 
on the Jews. Your contradiction therefore 
is only imaginary. 

Thus, sir, do we see, that the word on which 
such unshaken reliance has been placed, is no 
proof of endless woe. In rescuing this from 
your hand, I take away the main pillar of 
endless misery; for when partialists have been 
driven from all their other grounds, they turn 
to Gehenna as their last resort. 
I am, &c. 

Otis A. Skinner. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 159 



LETTER No. IX. 

Bell Air, Jan. 3, 1835. 
To Rev. Otis A. Skinner: 

Dear Sir — I find some remarks 
in your fifth letter which make it expedient for 
me to consider the noun aion a little more ma- 
turely. 

You charge me with perverting the views of 
my authorities, and say by my rule you could 
prove aion never means endless; for all say it 
signifies age. Please show one instance of per- 
version. I have given the time and place where 
all my authorities were printed, that the reader 
may be able to iind them and examine for him- 
self. All the authorities I have consulted say 
aion signifies eternity, among other significa- 
tions, and in general give eternity as the first or 
primary signification of the word ; and Clarke, 
no mean authority, says, no ward can more for- 
cibly point out eternity. That the word is 
sometimes used in a restricted sense, I have 
shown in more than thirty instances. But, to 
settle the point, I will say that for onelexicogra- 
pher you can find, who says the word does not 
mean eternity, I will produce one dozen who 
say it does mean eternity, or give up the point. 
In citing authorities I wish you would give both 
the date and place where the book was printed, 
as I strongly suspect some of your quotations 
to be mere forgeries. I shall not regard any 



160 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



quotation, in future, as any authority, unless it 
has these concomitants. A large portion of 
your letter contains nothing but personal abuse. 
To this you may resort when argument fails; 
but, I now say, once for all, that I will make no 
reply to anything of this kind in future; so you 
shall have it all to yourself. J write for the be- 
nefit of the sincere inquirer alter truth, and the 
better part of the community, therefore I can- 
not descend to anything of a base character. 

You say that aion in one of my thirty-three 
cases of limited signification, means the eternal 
world, in Luke xx. 35. On a mature examin- 
ation of the text, I was led to believe you were 
right, and accordingly, I shall place it with 
those signifying endless duration. Since writ- 
ing the last letter, a copy of the Cottage Bible 
fell into my hands. This work has large ex- 
planatory notes attached to it, by Thomas Wil- 
liams. In the note on Matt. xxv. 46, the editor 
says, "aion occurs 104 times in the New Tes- 
tament; 32 times in a limited sense, and 72 times 
in an erdless sense. This account agrees pre- 
cisely with the result of my own investigation, 
with the exception of the one instance which 
you mentioned, and serves very much to confirm 
me in the belief that I am right concerning the 
meaning of aion in the New Testament. 

I would further remark that Dr. M'llvaine, 
the celebrated translator of Mosheim's Church 
History' says, among other things, in a note ap- 
pended to that work, (vol. 1, page 34, Harrod's 
edition, Bait- 1832,) that, " these (the eastern) 
philosophers used the word Chronas as the mea- 
sure of corporeal and changeable objects; and 
aion as the measure of such as were immutable 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



161 



eternal, and, as God is the chief of those 
immutable beings which are spiritual, and cod* 
sequently not to be perceived by our outward; 
senses, his infinite and eternal duration wasex- 
pressed by the term aion; and that is the sense? 
in which the word is now commonly under- 
stood. It was however, afterwards attributed 
to other spiritual and invisible beings; and the 
oriental philosophers,, who lived about the time 
of Christ's appearance upon earth, and made 
"use of the Greek language, understood by it 
the duration of immutable and eternal thing*, 
or the period of time in which they exist. Nor 
did the variations, through which this word 
passed, end here. From expressing only the 
duration of beings, it was by a metonymy, 
employed to signify the beings themselves. 
Thus God was called aeon, and the angels were 
distinguished also by the title of aeons." This 
-extract from the Doctor's note will cast some 
considerable light on the meaning of the word 
as used by the New Testament writers. 

I shall now consider it more particularly as 
employed by the evangelists and the apostles. 

The noun aion occurs in the New Testa- 
ment 104 times, reckoning each reduplication 
as a single instance, 63 times in the singu- 
lar number, eighteen times in the plural, and 
23 times in a reduplicate form. It is thirty- 
two times used in a mataphorical sense, and 
signifies limited duration; twenty -six times in 
the singular, and six times in the plural. The 
word is seventy-two times used to signify un- 
limited or endless duration; thirty-seven times 
in the singular, twelve times in the plural, 
30 



162 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIOIC. 



and twenty-three times in a reduplicate form* 
In sixty-one places of the seventy- -two-, it is 
governed by the proposition eis, in which con- 
struction it never means limited duration, in 
the New Testament; leaving eleven places in 
which it must be understood in the endless 
sense though not governed by this preposition. 

1. The eleven places in question are as fol- 
low: — It is used six times in the singular num- 
ber, in three of which it signifies the eternal 
world. Mark x: 30. Luke xviii: 30; xx: 35; 
in one place all past time, John ix: 32; in one 
from eternity. Acts xv: 18: in one it expresses 
tke duration of Christ's glory. 2 Pet. iii. 18. 
Four times in the plural, (viz.) one time to 
express the duration of the glory of the ever 
blessed God. 1 Tim. i. 17; twice to signify that 
period of time which the mystery of the Gos- 
pel lay concealed. Eph. iii. 9; Col. i. 26, and 
one time to signify the duration of God's pur- 
pose. Eph. iii. 11; one time in a reduplicate 
form, translated, "throughout all ages, world 
without end," employed to express the dura- 
tion of the glory of God. Eph. iii. 21. That 
the word in these eleven cases ought to be un- 
derstood in the endless sense, I have no hesita- 
tion to assert in the most positive manner; how- 
ever, I wish the sincere enquirer after truth to 
examine all the places and decide for himself. 

The noun, when governed by eis, is always 
to be taken in the endless sense. It is used in 
this construction thirty-one times in the singu- 
lar number, as follow: twice concerning the 
fruit of the cursed fig tree. Matth. xxi. 19; 
Jlark xi. 14; once respecting the future world. 



THEOLOGICAE DISCUSSION 



163 



Heb. vi. 5; once concerning God's promise to 
the seed of Israel. Luke i. 55; once to describe 
the duration of the effects of drinking the water 
of life. John iv. 14; twice to point out the du- 
ration of the effects of eating the bread of life. 
John vi. 51, 58; twice in relation to the sinner 
and the son of God dwelling in the house of 
God, John viii. 35; six times to express the du- 
ration of the effects of keeping the sayings of 
Christ and doing the will of God, John viii. 51, 
52; x. 28; xi. 26; 1 John ii. 17; 2 John 2; once 
to express the duration of the existence of Christ, 
John xii. 34; once in relation to the washing of 
Peter's feet, John xiii. 8; once to signify the 
duration of the spirit's continuance with the 
children of God, John xiv. 16; once to express 
the duration of the period that Paul would ab- 
stain from flesh to save his weak brother, 1 Cor. 
viii. 13; and once to point out the duration of 
the righteousness of the good man, 2 Cor. ix. 9. 
The word is used six times to point out the end- 
Jess duration of the priesthood of Christ, Heb v. 
-6; vi. 20; vii. 17, 21, 24, 38; twice to signify 
the endless duration of God's word, 1 Pet. i. 23. 
25; once to signify the duration of Christ's glo- 
ry, 2 Pet. Hi. 18; and the word is employed 
three times to express the duration of future 
punishment ! Mark iii- 29, 2 Pet-ii. 17; Jude 
13. 

This word in this construction, is used eight 
times in the plural form, as follow : — three times 
to express the power and glory of the ever 
blessed God, Matt. vi. 13; Rom. xi. 36; xvi. 27; 
once, to point out the duration of the reign of 
Christ, Luke i. 33; three times to express the 



164 



THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION. 



duration of the blessedness of the Almighty 
God, Rom. 25; ix. 5; 2 Cor. xi. 31; and one 
time to express the eternity of Christ, Heb. 
xiii. 8. 

This word, in this construction, is used twen- 
ty-two times in a reduplicate form, as, eis tous 
aionos ton aionon, translated 'forever and ever.' 
This phrase does not occur in the Septuagint 
version of the scriptures; consequently we need 
not appeal to that version for any information 
respecting its signification. We are to look to 
the several places in the New Testament where 
it occurs; and, by this means ascerlain its true 
meaning. Now it is obvious to every attentive 
student of the New Testament that this phrase 
was never used by any of the inspired writers- 
with reference to temporal things, in any in. 
stance; but always in relation to eternal things, 
and to express their endless nature; so that in 
every instance it must be understood in the un- 
limited sense. To mke this evident, I shal 
refer to all the places where it occurs, and as- 
certain the objects to which it is applied, They 
are as follow - — It is eight times employed to 
express the duration of the glory of the ever 
blessed God, Gal. i. 5; Phil. iv. 20; 1 Tim. i. 
17; 2 Tim. iv. 18 ; Heb. xiii. 21; 1 Pet. v. 11; 
Rev. i. 6; vii. 12; once, to express the duration 
of the praise and dominion of God, 1 Pet. iv. 11, 
five times to express the duration of the exist- 
ence of the Deity, Rev. iv. 9, 10; v. 14; x. 6; 
xv, 7; once to point out the endless duration of 
God's throne, Heb. i. 8; once to express the 
eternity of Christ, Rev. i. 18; once to express 
the duration of Christ's reign Rev. xi. 15; once 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



165 



to express the duration of the honour, power and 
glory of Christ, Rev. v. 13, and once to express 
the duration of the saint's reign in the eternal 
world, Re* r . xxii. 5; and this phrase is three 
times employed to express the endless duration 
of future punishment!!! Rev. xiv. 11; xix. 3;xx. 
10. 

From the foregoing citations and remarks, 
it is manifest that the inspired writers of the 
New Testament used the word aion both in the 
singular and the plural form to express the ut- 
most bounds of unlimited duration; and that 
much more frequently than to express limited 
duration. The word is three times used in the 
singular form governed by the preposition eis, to 
designatethe duration of future misery, in which 
construction it is never used in a limited sense. 
This, to sav the least, is very alarming; and, 
certainly should create strong doubts in Fthe 
breast of every considerate Universalis res- 
pecting the truth of his doctrine. But, 

The reduplicate form of this word, I consider 
to be an incontestible evidence in proof of the 
doctrine of endless misery. The same phrase 
which is employed to express the eternity of 
God, Christ, God's throne, his glory, and pow- 
er, and the glory of the saints in heaven, is em- 
ployed by the same writer, under the same cir- 
cumstances precisely, to express the duration of 
the punishment of the wicked! ! The man that 
can fritter this away by sophistry and critical 
torture, can as readily explain away the exist- 
ence, throne, power and glory of God and the 
future happiness of the saints; as we have no 
stronger language in all the holy scriptures to 
31 



166 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

express the one than we have to express the 
other. This argument never was answered by 
any Universalist, and never can be answered. 
The circumstance of this phrase being coupled 
with the phrase "day and night 5 ' when applied 
to the misery of the wicked, is nothing against 
the present application of it; as we find the 
phrase "day and night" coupled with the celes- 
tial exercises of the redeemed before the throne 
of God, Rev. iv. 18; vii. 15; therefore, this 
phrase is so far from limiting the duration, eith- 
er of the misery of the wicked or the happiness 
of the righteous, that it signifies the perpetuity 
of the things to which it is applied. It is used 
in this sense in Josephus's discourse on Hades. 
But in order to get rid of this difficulty you were 
driven into the absurdity of representing the 
celestial glory and God's throne as being on the 
earth, contrary to our Lord's declaration (Matt, 
v. 34, 45,) where he affirms the divine throne to 
be in heaven, as distinct from the earth. Be- 
sides all this, in your second letter, you gravely 
tell me that in all the three places of punish- 
ment the phrase is coupled with the phrase 
"day and night;" whereas, if you examine Rev. 
xix. 3, you will find one of the three so far from 
being connected with it, that it does not occur 
in the same chapter at all. I suppose you mads 
this blunder by taking the matter at second 
hand; for I cannot think you ever examined the 
texts yourself, as I dont believe you capable of 
asserting a palpable falsehood. 

Your question "if aion in the singular means 
endless, how could it be used in the plural ?* 
I consider altogether irrelevant. The question, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION' 



167 



does it mean endless both in the singular and 
plural? and not how or why it does so, is the 
question we should understand. It is no mat- 
ter to us how aion, in the singular and plural, 
means endless, if it does in reality, in both cases 
signify endless, and that it does in both condi- 
tions means endless, is undeniable. This evi- 
dent both from its use in the New Testament 
and from Parkhurst. You might as well ask me 
why aion was spelled with only tour letters; or 
why A was put before B in the English alpha- 
bet. Eut I will answer your question if you 
will answer one of the following questions. If 
the word loose, in the English, means to untie, 
how could a writer use the word unloose? If 
the word cease signifies to stop, how could a 
writer tise the word surcease ? It you will ans- 
wer these questions I will answer your' s. The 
fact is, the word aion, both in the singular and 
plural evidently means endless; the words loose 
and unloose both mean to untie, and the words 
cease and surcease mean to stop. When these 
meanings are fixed to all these words by Lexi- 
cographers, it is sufficient for us, without being 
able to give reasons for all the different changes 
through which they pass. 

I shall now consider those texts which you 
say do not mean endless duration though gov- 
erned by the preposition eis. They are sixteen 
in number. One of them (John ix. 32,) you say 
in your second letter, is not governed by this 
preposition, but in your fifth letter you say it is 
governed by it. The absurdity and impossibi- 
lity of its being governed and not governed at 
the same time is a sufficient refutation of what 
31* 



16S THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



you have said concerning it. Therefore only 
fifteen remain for consideration. 

Two of these texts relate to the cursed figtree, 
Matt. xxi. 19; Mark. xi. 14. One affirms that 
no fruit shall ever grow on it, and the other that 
no man shall ever eat of its fruit. These you 
say are limited. Let me ask what are the lim- 
its of aion in these texts? How long is the pe- 
riod intended here ? Do you mean to say that 
this figtree will bring forth figs at some future 
time? The most superficial reader may see 
that our Saviour intended, by the expression, 
the utmost bounds of eternity. The sense is 
the same, precisely as if any other words had 
been used that expressed eternity in the most 
unequivocal manner. If the wicked never enter 
into the heavenly blessedness till the cursed 
figtree bear figs and men eat them, Mr. Skinner 
himself would despair of their ever entering it 
even to the utmost limits of eternity. That the 
text in Luke i. 55 where it is said that God made 
promise to Abraham and his seed forever, must 
be taken in the endless sense, will be evident to 
any one that will turn to Gen. xvii. 19, where 
God said I will establish my covenant with him 
lor an everlasting covenant, and with his seed 
lifter him. The everlasting covenant here was 
not confined to the Jewish priesthood, but re- 
lated to the covenant orscheme of man's redemp- 
tion by Jesus Christ. That this is the true in- 
terpretation, will be manifest by turning to Gal. 
iii. 16, where we have a comment given by an 
inspired apostle. His words are: — "Now to 
Abraham and his seed were the promises made. 
He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 169 



of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." — 
Therefore, this promise to the seed of Abraham 
having relation to our redemption by Jesus 
Chrisr. must be understood in the endless sense 
in order to avoid the absurdity of supposing 
that all the benefits of the gospel of Christ will 
come to an end so far as they relate to mankind. 
Three texts, John iv. 14: vi. 51, 58, relate to the 
effects of drinking " the water of life" and eating 
4 6 the bread of lile' 5 which Christ gives to his 
people. Now the phrases "water of life" and 
* 'bread of lile" are metaphorical expressions em- 
ployed to signify the benefits conferred on man- 
kind resulting from the atonement of Christ — 
How a Universalist should say the effects of the 
mercy and goodness of God on the human heart 
are limited in their duration, 1 am at a loss to 
understand. Perhaps we are to understand 
that, the effects of the water and bread of life 
will cease, as you would have us understand of 
eternal life, and the soul be either annihilated 
or cast into endless punishment. The Saviour 
says those who drink of the water he shall give, 
shall never thirst; but you would say they shall 
thirst again. The bare mentioning of such an 
absurdity is an ample refutation of it. In one 
text, John x. 28, my sheep shall never perish, 
you say the word has a limited signification. — 
You might as well use plain language, and say 
openly, they shall perish. Who could believe 
that our Saviour meant that his sheep should 
not perish for a time, a dispensation, or an age, 
and after that leave them exposed to destruction? 
The absurdity of this also carries with it its own 
refutation. In John xiii. 8, Peter taid 3 "Ttiou 



170 THEOLOGICAL D1SCUSSIOK 



shalt never wash my feet." To a superficial 
reader this might appear somewhat plausible; 
but when it is considered that Peter on receiv- 
ing better information changed his mind, and 
submitted to have his feet washed^the difficulty 
vanishes away. When Peter declared that 
Christ should never wash his feet, he did not 
intend that the prohibition should ever cease at 
any future period. Hence this text, as all the 
others, ought to be understood in the unlimited; 
sense. Another text on your list of limited 
ones is John xiv. 16, where the Saviour said 1 
the comforter should abide with his people for- 
ever. Who informed you that the spiritual gift* 
of heaven are limited in their duration? 1 can- 
not see for the life of me that this is anything 
short of giving up the doctrine of Universal ism 
altogether. The Holy Spirit is the gift of the 
Deity to the redeemed, and, such only as have 
this gift, belong to Christ; for it is said, "if 
any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is 
none of his. 1 ' But you say, the Spirit shall not 
always continue with the redeemed, but only. a 
certain period, and then depart from them. If 
the Spirit depart from the righteous, they ther> 
cease to be Christ's; and, if they cease to be 
Christ's, they must be given to the devil, or 
annihilated. Such is the absurdity into which 
yauir.uii, by forcing a limited meaning where 
the scope of the passage requires an endless sig- 
nification. Paul said he would not eat flesh 
while the world standeth if it would cause his 
weak brother to' offend, 1 Cor. viii. 13. That 
is, if eating flesh would injure the conscience 
gf a weak brother, Paul would not eat flesh at 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 171 



all, or at any future time to the utmost limits 
of eternity. The word aion in the phrase, 
"powers of the world to come" Heb. vi. 5, you 
suppose to be limited in signification. I can- 
not see how this comes to pass. The world to 
come musf mean the future state, and not the 
gospel dispensation, as the gospel period in the 
same epistle, is called "these last days," Heb. 
i. 2. "A kingdom that cannot be moved," 
Heb. xii. 28. And as the apostle lived and 
wrote the epistle in the gospel period, he could 
not speak of it as future; therefore the woild to 
come means the kingdom of glory. This is 
further manifest from the effects mentioned in 
the context. Consequently, the word here has 
an endless signification. In four texts, Heb. v. 
6; vi. 20; vii. 17- 21, you say the word has a 
limited signification where it is used to express 
the duration of the priesthood of Christ. — 
This is still more extraordinary than the for- 
mer. The priesihood of Christ limited in du - 
ration ! Good Heaven ! Where will a man 
stop when he once embraces a false system ? — 
That the priesthood of Christ is endless I prove 
by the following particulars: — 1. His priest- 
hood in scripture is represented as being- of 
equal duration with his life ; for it is said " he 
ever liveth to make intercessions for us," Heb. 
vii. 25; therefore, we have as much reason to 
believe he will die, as to believe he will cease 
to be a priest, intercession being an essential 
part of the priestly office. 2. The priesthood 
of Christ is said to be unchangable, or that 
which passeth not from one person to another, 
Heb. vii. 24. Therefore he must always con- 



172 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

linue to be a priest, even to endless ages. 3. 
He was made a priest after the power of an end- 
less life (akatalutou.) Heb. vii. 16, If his priest- 
hood is endless, which is undeniable from this 
text, 1 cannot see how it shall come to an end: 
perhaps you can inform me. I am aware that 
the Unirersalists tell the world, in their publi- 
cations that the term endless is applied to the 
happiness of the righteous. But there is no 
such thing in all the word of God. The term 
endless occuis only in the above cited text, and 
it is applied to the priesthood of Christ, which 
you say will come to an end ! 4. His priest- 
hood is endless as to its effects. In fact, all 
things connected with his priestly office are 
endless in their nature. His life is endless; his 
office is not transferable, no one shall succeed 
him in office; and the blessed effects of hi* 
priestly office shall be endless. 

As I have shown that aion means endless du- 
ration in every instance of the fifteen cases 
where you supposed it to be limited, I take it 
for granted that the question is settled by the 
preposition eis at last. 

Your remark on John viii. 35, is a singular- 
ity of such a nature as I have never met with 
before. You admit the sense to be of an end- 
less nature; but, because you suppose the same 
word in the Old Testament has a limited signi- 
fication it must be limited here where the 
sense necessarily requires an endless significa- 
tion. Even in Exod. xxi. 6, the word has an 
endless negative signification; for, the slave re- 
fusing his freedom was to be a slave for life; 
-that is, he was never to be free. When aion 
is used to express the utmost limits of time 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIOX. 



173 



that the object of its application will admit of, 
it may, with the utmost propriety, be called 
endless; as the thing spoken of shall never return 
to its original condition. 

You insinuate that I have undergone a change 
of mind since writing my second letter, that I 
then intended to settle the question by the pre- 
position eis, but that failing, 1 had to make 
rules whereby it must be settled. This is all 
perversion. I underwent no change on the 
subject whatever. I then intended the prepo- 
sition eis to settle the question concerning aion 
in the New Testament, and I am very much 
mistaken if I have not settled it by this lule in 
this letter: I intended the rules to embrace 
both the old and New Testament, also, eternal, 
everlasting and forever, and I intend so still; 
and I find you cannot refute any one of the 
rules in question; for, if you could, you would 
have done so. To say you "reject it with con- 
tempt" is no argument for or against any prin- 
ciple. If this sort of stuff were argument, we 
could soon settle the question. I say I "reject 
with contempt" the whole system of Universal - 
ism. Would you take this for a satisfactory 
refutation of Universalism? 1 suppose not. — 
Well. If you have refuted the rules in ques- 
tion, I have refuted the whole system of Uni- 
versalism. Either your assertion is good for 
nothing, or it is good for something. If it is 
good for nothing, the rules I have laid down 
stand in full force. If it is good for something 
Universalism is refuted. I leave you in this 
dilemma to consider what side you prefer. 
1 am, &c. 

Joseph McKee. 



174 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



LETTER No. IX. 

Baltimore, Jan. 25, 1835. 

To Rev. Joseph McKee: 

Dear Sir — -In charging 1 you with 
perverting authorities on aion, I acted from a 
sense of duty to the cause I advocate. The ex- 
posure of such an act, was no pleasant task ; but 
as great reliance is placed upon Lexicons, and as 
when fairly quoted, they sustain my views of 
aion, it was necessary that your perversion should 
be noticed. You now add to the aggravation of 
this, by calling for, one instance, to sustain my 
charge. I have before given Phavorinus, Grove, 
and Parkhurst, who say it means man's life, as 
well as eternity, men which you represented as 
saying, it* meant only eternity. Now suppose an 
inquirer should ask me the meaning of aion, and 
I should say Phavorinus, Grove, Parkhurst, Jones, 
Donnegan, Hincks, Valpey, Hedericus, Schrevil- 
ius, Pickering, Sec. all say it means man's life, 
without hinting that they saj r it signifies eternity., 
would you not call this a perversion of authorities? 
If so, you perverted, grossl}- perverted those which 
I have instanced. And this you now admit; for 
you affirm, that all the authorities which you 
have consulted, sa) r , that aion signifies eternity, 
amongr f other significations. ' Thus do you admit 
my charge. This perversion will appear still 
greater, when it is considered, that you quoted 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 175 

from these men to prove, that the etymological 
sense of aion is endless ; and to give this posi- 
tion the slightest plausibility, you were compelled 
to exclude their other definitions ; for a word 
could not be strictly endless in its meaning, and 
have the great variety of significations, which 
Lexicographers admit aion has. Lrepeat, there- 
fore, that you1|Tossly perverted your authorities. 

While on this subject, I will expose another 
perversion of authority equally as glaring as the 
foregoing. In your quotation from Maclaine's 
note in Mosheim, you have given only a part; 
whereas, had you given the whole it would have 
refuted youT views of aion- The part which you 
have excluded, reads thus : 

" The word aion or aeon is commonly used 
among Greek writers, but in different senses: Its 
signification in the Gnostic system is not very 
evident, and several learned men have despaired 
of finding out its true meaning. Aion or aeon 
among the ancients was used to signify the age of 
man, or the duration of human life. In after 
times, it was employed by philosophers, to express 
the duration of spiritual and invisible beings." 

This is the part of the note which you have 
seen fit to exclude from your letter, and it fully 
destroys the position for which you have been 
contending, because if the ancients used aion to 
signify the age of man, or the duration of human 
life, its primary signification cannot be endless. 
Thus are you obliged to pervert authorities and 
to give garbled quotations to make out your case. 
But even then you fail, for Mr. Maclaine's note 
refers to the use of aion among the oriental phil- 
osophers, and proves nothing positive concerning 



176 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



its use in the New Testament. Further, accord- 
ing to the fantastic mythology of these philoso- 
phers, the word among them, could not have been 
used invariably in an endless sense, for some of 
the beings which by a metonymy they called 
aeons, were supposed to have only a limited ex- 
istence. 

I cannot refrain from noticing here, your de- 
parture from your own rules. In a previous let- 
ter, you complained of me, for referring to the 
Septuagint and to the early Christian fathers, to 
learn the sense of aion. The former, you de- 
nounced as bad Greek, and the latter as enthusi- 
asts and fanatics ; but now you think the opini- 
ons of oriental philosophers throw great light on 
this subject ! ! Now why all this twisting and 
turning ? Why not meet the question fairly and 
without any garbled quotations ? Does a good 
cause require such aid ? 

You say all Lexicographers give eternity as the 
first and primary meaning of aion- Such is not 
the fact. Donnegan, Hincks, Hedericus and 
Schrevilius give age or life as its first and primary 
meaning N 

Your offer to produce twelve Lexicographers 
who say aion means endless, for every one which 
I will produce, who says it does not, is a pomp- 
ous parade, at the expense of your cause and fo- 
reign from the question ; because 1 . I admit that 
eternity is one of its significations. 2. Every 
Lexicographer with which I have met has given 
age as one of its significations. What then if 
every Lexicographer in existence gave eternity 
as one of the senses of aion 1 It would be no ar- 
gument against my views, since they all admit 



outrageous charge that some of my quotations 
from Lexicons are (i mere forgeries ! I" Now sir 
I call on you, either to sustain this insinua- 
tion or else acknowledge that you have violated 
the rules of honourable discussion. One of the 
two you are bound as a gentleman and a christian 
•to do. This charge of forgery , together with that 
of personal abuse, is kindred to the false one pre- 
ferred of calling Clarke a bigot, I consider them 
designed to make me appear in that odious and 
shameful light in which you are conscious that 
you stand — m other words, to bring me down to 
a level with 3 r ourself. But the enlightened rea- 
der is not to be duped in this manner ; nor shall 
i be provoked by this, to depart from an honour- 
able and christian course* And should you reit- 
erate these charges,, or accuse me of quibbles, eva- 
sions, miserable subterfuges, &e> I shall only hold 
them up to the reader's gaze, and call them by their 
right names. If this be personal abuse, then have 
I transgressed ; but if simply holding these up as 
I have done be abuse, what shall we call making 
the charges f Let your conscience give the at 
-awer, $% 



17S THEOLOGCIAL DISCUSSION. 

Before considering what you have said on aion y 
it may be well to sum up what I have proved re. 
specting it in my previous letters. 1. I have 
proved from its roots that its etymological mean- 
ing is time indefinite,, or continued existence. 2. 
I have proved from Lexicographers, that it is va- 
riously used, and of course, that its sense must 
always be determined by the connexion in 
which it occurs. 3. I have proved that eis 
can determine nothing respecting its meaning, 
because in the Septuagint and also in the New 
Testament, it often governs it when limited. To 
the first two of these, you have found it conve- 
vient to give no answer, as is the case with my 
arguments on many other subjects. Instead of 
replying to these, you have wasted your time hi 
telling about the coincidence between your views, 
and those expressed in the notes of the Cottage 
Bible, by which you were led to change your opi- 
nion and adopt my explanation of a text. Inspir- 
ed with confidence by this, you go over the ground 
which you travelled in Letter No. 2, simply as- 
serting that aionin seventy-two places means end- 
less. Have you no argment against universalism 
but assertion ? Where are those strong proofs, 
by which you have threatened to crush this mon- 
strous heresy ? After stating your pos'tions and 
proving them by assertions, you gravely draw the 
conclusion, that the use of axon is an incontrover- 
tible argument against Universalism. All this 
you enforce, by your usual christian and courte- 
ous flourish — (( the man who can fritter this away 
by sophistry and critical torture, &c. Now, were 
I to treat this part of your letter as it deserves, I 
should pay no attention to your assertions respect- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 179 



ing axon and eis ; but being anxious to render our 
discussion as instructive as possible, I will explain 
these texts and reply to those which you assert 
are so hostile to Universalism. 

1. Let us consider the eleven texts where 
aion is not governed by eis. Of these the follow- 
ing are limited: Mark x. 30; Luke xviii. 30; John 
ix. 32; Acts xv. 18; Eph. iii. 9; Col. i. 26 — 
"That the word in these" six "cases is limited 

1 have no hesitation to assert, in the most posi- 
tive manner." As these speak of a world, (aionx) 
to come, in contrast with a world (aion) that is 
past, of the beginning of the world (aionos,) and 
of worlds (aionon.) they show that axon is here 
limited. But this I have proved in letters No. 

2 and 5, and to this proof you have given no re* 
ply. Besides, Dr. Clarke says, he is fully satis- 
fied, that the phrase * world to come' signifies the 
Christian dispensation. He is against you there- 
fore on Mark x. 30, and Luke xviii. 30. He is 
also against you on John ix. 32, for he saya 
f since the world began,' means ee from the com- 
mencement of time." From his comments on 
Acts xv. 18, Eph. iii. 9, and Col. i. 26 it is plain 
that he understood axon there in a limited sense. 

Thus have I sustained my assertion respecting 
these six texts, by proof, and by your own com- 
mentator. And this I Suppose will be equal to 
your assertion. 

2. I deny that aion in the singular, when gor- 
erned by eis is endless in the following texts* 
Matt. xxi. 19; Mark xi. 14; Heb. vi;. 5 Luke i. 
55; John viil 35; x. £8; 1 John ii. 17; 2 John % 
Johniv, 14; vi. 51 — 58; xiii. 8; xiv. 16; 1 Cor- via. 
33 



180 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



13; Heb. v. 6; vi. 20; vii, 17, 21, 24, 28; 1 Pet. 
i. 23, 28; Mark iii. 29; 2 Pet. ii. 17; Jude 13 — 
Here are 25 cases to be deducted from your 31. 

In letter No. 5, I referred to fifteen texts, 
deeming these sufficient to refute your argument 
drawn from eis; but as you have again brought 
it up, it becomes necessary to go more fully into 
this subject, and show how sadly you have wrested 
Scripture to give your argument support. Before 
proceeding to this however, I must notice your 
shouts of triumph at the trifling error in setting 
down John ix. 32. as an instance where eis go* 
verns axon- In the numerous references which 
are made in these letters, it would be strange if 
errors of this nature did not occur. Several have 
occurred in yours, which I have corrected, and 
there is one in your present letter. Your seizing 
therefore, with such avidity upon mine, shows how 
sadly you are pushed for argument, and is like a 
sinner, magnifying into mountains, the uninten- 
tional mistakes of the good. I will now consider 
the 25 texts where eis ton aiona occurs in which 
axon is limited. 

1. Matt. xxi. 19 and Mark xi. 14. These two 
relate to the fig tree cursed by our Lord. To be 
satisfied of the limitation of aion in them, it is 
only necessary to observe, that a fig tree has, at 
the longest, only the brief existence of a few 
years; it exists in no case to the "utmost bounds 
of eternity." Where then was the necessity of 
our Lord conveying the idea, that to the "utmost 
bounds of eternity," the fig tree should bear no 
fruit ? Such a declaration would have been alto*, 
gether gratuitous. His language, therefore, must 
be interpreted by the subject upon which he was 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 181 

speakings and if this be done, he can only be con- 
sidered as saying", the figtree should wither, and 
bear fruit no more. Your question, whether I be- 
lieve the figtree will bear fruit, at some future 
time, is entirely irrelevant, because it is in no way 
necessary to say this, to show, that aion is here lim- 
ited; for the figtree was of short existence, and aion 
was used with reference to this. Can you or any 
reflecting man seriously believe our Saviour 
taught, that to the ee utmost bounds of eternitjr," 
no fruit should grow upon the tree, which he 
cursed ? Rather than advance an idea so su- 
premely absurd, let us admit that he used aion as 
it often occurs in Scripture and in common con- 
versation. Thus Micah says (chap, iv, 5) we 
will walk in the name of the Lord our God for- 
ever and ever, (eis ton aoina kai epekeina, Greek, 
olam va ad, Hebrew.) So we say of man, he is 
mined forever, when we simply refer to tempo- 
ral misfortunes. 

2. Luke i. 55. As Clarke is against you on 
this, it will be sufficient to give his words. The 
Verse preceeding, he sa} r s, relates to God's cove- 
nant, and v. 55 records the fact, that this was 
given in one form or other to all the fathers. — - 
And this is what he understands by speaking to 
Abraham and his seed forever. Observe, verse 
55 does not say, he made an endless promise, 
but that he spoke to them forever. It is indus- 
putably certain then, that aion is here limited. 

3. John iv. 14; vi. 51, 58. These relate to the 
effects of drinking the water of life. Your at- 
tempt to make me deny the endless blessings of 
grace and goodness, because I said aion was her® 



182 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



limited, is another proof that you are conscious of 
the weakness of your cause; for if I were really 
in error, there would be no need of perverting my 
views. The grounds on which I prove endless 
bliss, are stated in letter No. 6. I trust therefore, 
you will not w^aste your time any longer, in re- 
peating this hackneyed charge. My reason for 
saying axon is limited in these texts is, many 
who first drank of the water of life fell from grace, 
their love waxed cold. Consequently, the life 
which they had was limited. Of this there is no 
doubt. This fact has several times been men- 
tioned, but you have not yet given it an answer. 

4. John x. 28. Although you have said the 
absurdity of my position on this, carries with it 
its own refutation, it is precisely the opinion ex- 
pressed by Clarke. Hence he says, they who 
continue to hear Christ's voice and follow him, 
shall never perish; thus showing, that if they 
ceased to have Christ "living and governing in 
their souls" they would cease to have eternal 
]ife, and of course, perish, thus making the pro- 
mise conditional. As Christ was more power- 
ful than all the united energies of men and de- 
mons, none could pluck his followers from him, 
but they could, as many did, fall away. And 
when this was done they ceased to be his sheep, 
and consequently forfeited his protecting care. 

5. John xiii. 8. This contains Peter's decla- 
ration, that Christ should never wash his feet. 
<dion is here used as in Matt. xxi. 19 and Mark 
xi, 14. See our remarks on those, for a reply to 
yours on this, Peter could have meant only 
during his lifetime. 

6. John xiv. 16. On this Clarke says : Ajk 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 183 

the death and atonement of Christ will be ne^ 
cessary to man till the conclusion of the world ; 
so the office of the Holy Spirit must be conti- 
nued among men till the end of time : therefore^ 
says Christ, he shall continue with you forever* 
What you have said on this text, about "ah-* 
surdity," "annihilation" and "giving up Uni^ 
versalism," is entirely foreign, as the reader will 
see from the above quotation. 

7. Cor. viii. 13. This is Paul's declaration 
concerning eating meat. Clarke explains it 
thus: Rather than give offence, "I would not 
only abstain from all meats offered to idols, but 
I would eat no flesh, should I exist through the 
whole course of time. 1 ' I need add nothing here. 

8. Heb. v. 6; vi. 20; vii. 17, 21, 24, 28. These 
relate to Christ's priesthood. My position on 
this seems to have filled you with fright. , I in- 
fer this from your wild exclamations, and your 
still more wild positions. But I would say to 
you as the angel did to the shepherds, "Fear 
not" — truth will do you no harm. 

Your four positions, might deserve a reply, 
were it not that Paul has expressly said, (1 Cor. 
xv.) that Christ shall finally deliver up the 
kingdom to God, by which Clarke understands 
his mediatorial kingdom; and which, he says, 
comprehends all the displays of his grace in sav- 
ing sinners, and all his spiritual influence in go- 
verning the Church. In the same chapter, Paul 
says, Christ shall become subject to God, and 
that God shall be all in all, by which Clarke un- 
derstands that Christ will then cease to act in 
the capacity of a Messiah and Mediator. Of 
course he will cease vo be a Priest. Therefore 
33* 



184 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



though Paul says Chnst ever lives to make inter- 
cession, that his priesthood is unchangeable, and 
that Christ is a priest forever, he must not be 
understood, so as to clash with his testimony in 
1 Cor. xv. He may live forever, but he will not 
make intercession after he gives up the kingdom; 
his priesthood was not transferable, but he 
could give it up when he resigned his office as 
mediator, he might be made a priest forever af- 
ter the power of an endless life, and still his 
priesthood be limited, for Clarke says this means 
he was immortal, and would not die, or cease 
through weakness, to be a priest. As to its ef- 
fects, they can prove nothing with respect to the 
duration of the priesthood. Christ's priesthood, 
is not, as you have declared, said to be endless, 
but to be Bis toil aiona. He was made a priest, 
not after the Aaronic priesthood, nor after the 
law of a carnal commandment, but after or ac- 
cording to the power of an endless life. But 
because this life was endless, it does by no 
means follow, that the life of Christ, as a priest, 
is also endless. Such, we have seen, is not the 
case; therefore Universalists believe that the 
Saviour's priesthood is limited, while the life 
and blessings which result from it are endless. 
And in this way they prove endless happiness 
from akatalutou. So your remark on this is a 
perversion of our views. Hence we may say 
with Paul that Christ will deliver up his kingdom 
to God, and God will be all in all. 

The remaining instances, of «is ton aiona 
are so evidently limited that I need not illustrate 
them. My views on John viii. 35, you have 
perverted. I must therefore refer the reader to ; 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



185 



letter No. 5 for a defence of this. Heb. vi. 5, 
Clarke refers to the Gospel dispensation. 2 John 
2; 1 John ii. 17; 1 Pet. i. 23, 25, require no ex- 
planation. 

The plural and reduplicate forms of aion are 
admitted to be generally endless in the New 
Testament. Luke i. 33, is an exception, and 
also the three texts which speak of punishment. 
The former cannot be endless, because Christ 
is to deliver up his kingdom to God; and the 
latter we will now prove cannot be, according to 
the connexion and the opinion of critics. Belbre 
doing this, however, it may be well for us 
to sum up what we have proved respecting 
eis and aion. 1. We have proved that out of 
the 72 times in which you say aion is endless, 
32 of them are limited, leaving, after deducting 
the 6 from the 72, which relate to punishment, 
only 34 cases where it is endless in the whole 
New Testament; and thus showing that it 
is limited 70 times and unlimited 34 in the New 
Testament. I must add there are other cases 
where I think it limited. 2. We have proved 
that instead of aion being endless in every in- 
stance when governed by eis, it is limited in 
23 cases. After we shall have considered the 6 
which relate to punishment, we think it will be 
admitted to be limited in 29 cases; thus making 
aion about as often limited, when governed by 
eis, as unlimited. 

It now remains to consider the 6 texts where 
aion is connected with misery. On these you 
differ from Stuart in his work against Univer- 
ealism. He sets down only five texts^ leaving 
out Mark iu\ 29. 
34 



186 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION* 



1. Mark iii. 29. This is the sin against the 
Holy Ghost, which we have explained in letters 
No. 3 and 6 to which the reader is referred.— 
We will only add: 1. That Matthew in record- 
ing this, does not use els, but en. 2. Clarke, 
Wakefield and Pearce, translate aion, age, and 
refer it to this world. 3. St. Matthew says, 
neither in this age, neither in the age to come 
— that is, say the above commentators, the 
Jewish age and the Christian. 4. Mark says, 
hath not forgiveness unto the age (eis tons aio- 
na) that is. unto the Christian age, but is in 
danger of the punishment which will be inflicted 
when Christ comes to destroy the Jews. 

2. 2 Pet. ii. 17. "To whom is reserved the 
mists of darkness forever." To understand 
these words, let us consider, 1. That they 
were addressed to christians under great perse- 
cution. 2. That the apostle draws, from God's 
dealings with the angels that sinned, with the 
old world and Noah, with Sodom and Lot, an 
argument to encourage the christians under 
their sufferings. His language is, 'the Lord 
knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temp- 
tation, (or trial) and to reserve the unjust unto 
the (or rather, according to the Greek a) day 
of judgment to be punished. 5 He had done thus 
in these cases. The day of judgment to them, 
was the day of their destruction. As God had 
done with those to whom the apostle alludes, so 
would he do with those he was addressing, and 
their enemies. Hence he says, c the damnation 
of those wicked men slumbered not, and 
their judgment lingered not. 5 This agrees 
with his language in his first Epistle iv. 17, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 187 



"The time is come that judgment must begin 
at the house of God. And it" it first begin at 
us (the christians) what shall be the end?" &c. 
He telis their end — 'they should be destroyed as 
brute beasts, they should perish iu their corrup- 
tion. ' 4. The following chapter~sustains this 
view of the subject. There it is said, it had 
been revealed, 'that in the last days scoffers 
should come, asking, where is the promise of 
Christ's coming ?' To understand the full im- 
port of this, we must consider, that Christ had 
told the disciples he should come, and reward 
them for their faithfulness, and punish his enc - 
mes. To this the scoffers refer. 5. Under the 
fiigure of destroying the heavens and the earth 
the apostle represents the judgment coming up- 
on the Jews. This is a common figure for 
changes in church and state. See Isa. xiii. 9, 
10; Eze. xxiii. 7, 8; Dan. viii. 10. That this is 
the apostle's meaning is evident, from his allu- 
. sion to the destruction of the old world by the 
flood, which he thus expresses : "by the word 
of God the heavens were of old, and the earth 
standing out of the water and in the water, 
whereby Ihe world that then was, being over- 
flowed vs ith water, perished." From this, it is 
plain, that by destroying ihe heavens and the 
earth, he means the great change which took 
place, at the close of the old dispensation. This 
is confirmed by the figure c fire' being used, fcr 
thi& is a common figure, to represent the des- 
truction of the Jews. 6. The time of this was 
at the coming of Christ, which was to be as a 
thief in the night. This is precisely the way it is 
represented in Matt. xxiv. which all refer to the 



13S 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



destruction of Jerusalem. 7. They were ex- 
horted as in Matt. xxiv. to faithfulness with re- 
ference to this coming, because then the faithful 
would be rewarded, and the ungodly would fall 
in judgment. 

From this brief review of the chapters., it is ev- 
ident, that Peter was illustrating to the Christi- 
ans^ from the angels,, the old worlds Sodom., Nc- 
ah, and Lot, how their enemies would be destroy- 
ed in the coming judgment and they delivered out 
of their trials. If so., the phrase ^mists of dark- 
ness forever' only expressed the punishment 
then inflicted upon the Jews^, who rejected our 
Lord and his sacred instructions. 

3. Jude 13. This was explained in Letter No. 

7. 

4. Rev. xiv. ll;xix. 3; xx. 10. That these 
texts all refer to the same time and punishment, 
is evident from the allusion in all three to Sodom 
and Gomorrah,, from which are borrowed" the 
figures "lake of fire and brimstone., and their 
smoke ascendeth up., &c." From their intimate 
connexion and agreement it is evident that the 
phrase "day and night" is alike applicable to all; 
which shows beyond dispute that they refer to a 
temporal punishment, a punishment where time 
is measured by days and nights. Hence before you 
again charge me with error Jook well to the subject; 
and see that you are able to sustain your charge. 
Rosenmuller., Grotius., and Hammond explain 
these texts in accordance with Universalism. 

Having already explained the texts w here 
day and night is connected with the duration of 
the exercises before the throne of God, I will 
add nothing further. If, however, you wish for 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 189 

more light on this, read Clarke, and he will set 
you right. As it is customary to say of people 
engaged in worship, they are before the throne 
of God, I can see no force in your argument on 
this. 

Thus, dear sir, we see, that aion is limited in 
70 cases out of 104, and that it is about as often 
limited as endless, when governed by eis. Uni- 
versalism, therefore, can never be opposed by 
this word. If it is to be put down^ it must be by 
other arguments. 

My question, if "aion means endless, in the 
singular, how it could be used in the plural?" is 
evaded by introducing words 'unloose and untie, 
cease and surcease, 5 and by saying I might as 
well ask, why aion is spelled with four letters, 
or why A was put before B in the English al- 
phabet. Now when we consider, that aion is 
used in the singular and plural, in a single and 
reduplicate form, for times past and future, and 
in connxion with things temporal and eternal, 
when we consider that it is composed of aei 
which signifies continually, and of on which 
signifies being, or existence, it seems impossible 
to resist the conclusion, that its etymological 
sense is continued existence; and if it be not, I 
see no way in which it could properly be used 
in these various senses. Until this argument is 
answered, you can raise no objection from aion 
against universalism. 

As it respects your four rules, I say now, as 
I have before said, I admit their correctness and 
am willing to meet you on the ground they pre 
scribe. All therefore, which you have said 
about my being unable to refute them, and my 



1§0 THE0L0GCUS. DXSCUWOJr. 



dilemma, is fighting a man of straw. It was 
not your rules, but your absurd inferences 
which I rejected, because they took for granted 
the point in question. But admitting I had 
made the assertion you say , how would it fol- 
low, that if it was good for nothing, your rules 
stood in full force, but if it was good for some • 
thing, Universalism was refuted. Really, this 
is a logic which I do not understand. Please 
explain. 

From this examination, we discover that the 
doctrine of endless misery rests upon ambiguous 
words for support* Aion is regarded as its 
strongest proof, and this only signifies continu- 
ed existence ; and out of 104 times, only 34, at 
the most, are endless. It is only six times con- 
nected with punishment, and all these have been 
explained by orthodox commentators in a lim- 
ited sense ! Would the Allwise Creator,, when 
his children are exposed to infinite dangers, 
give them no other warning of it than this? — 
Why did he not speak in language which would 
show them the positive certainty of this endless 
woe? Why did he not thunder their tremendous 
doom continually in their ears? Aion only six 
times connected with misery ! ! O how unlike 
bible preaching is the popular preaching of 
this age ! And how feeble the proofs of endless 
woe ! The Lord is good to all, his tender mer- 
cies are over all the works of his hands. 

I am, &c. 

Otis A. Skinner. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



191 



LETTER No. X. 

Bell Air, Feb. 8, 1835. 

To Rev- Otis A. Skinner: 

Dear Sir — The sacred scriptures teach 
us that punishment shall be inflicted on the un- 
godly in exact proportion to the number and mag- 
nitude of their crimes. Agreeably to this senti- 
ment we may justly conclude that the punish- 
ment of Gentiles, Jews and apostate Christians 
shall be variously diversified in proportion to the 
light and other means of improvement which they 
enjoyed. And not only so, but the Gentiles or 
Heathens themselves will be variously punished 
as to the degrees of punishment, as there is no 
doubt, as great a difference between the sin of ona 
Heathen, and another, as there is between a 
Heathen and a Jew, and as great difference be- 
ween the sin of one Jew, and another Jew, as 
there is between a Jew and a Christian ; or, in 
other words, there may be as great a difference 
between a good Heathen and a bad one, as there is 
between a bad Heathen and a good Jew, and as 
much difference between a good Jew and a 
bad one, as there is between a bad Jew and 
a common sinner under the gospel. Now, if 
this be admitted, which I think will not be 
denied, it will authorise us to believe that the 
degrees of punishment are not degrees of time, 
but of severity. All these punishments may be 
endless, as to their duration, but variously diversi- 
fied, as to the degree of the pain inflicted. The 



193 THEOLOGICAL BI3CUSSIOK". 

least sin will exclude the sinner from the king* 
dom of heaven if he will not comply with the of- 
fer of divine mercy ; so that his sufferings may 
consist chiefly of privation, while egregious pro- 
fligates shall suffer according to the greatness of 
their crimes. The point in dispute between us, 
is, whether these degrees of misery are equally 
intense and different in duration, or equal in du- 
ration and different in intensity. Yovr contend 
for the former. I contend for the lattei , which I 
expect to prove to be a doctrine of revelation, be- 
fore this discussion shall be concluded. 

The place of the future punishment of the wick- 
ed is called by a great number of names in the 
scriptures. The following twenty are submitted 
for your consideration: — "Wrath to come. 1 ' Matt, 
iii. 7. "Unquenchable fire." Mark ix. 43, 44, 
45. 46, 48. "Hell" Matt. v. 29. "Fire." Matt, 
vii. 19. "Outer darkness." Matt. viii. 12. "A 
furnace of fire." Matt. xv. 42, 50. "Everlast- 
ing fire." Matt, xviii. 8. "Hell fire." Matt, 
xviii. 9. "The greater damnation." Matt, xxiii. 
14. "The damnation of hell." Matt xxiii. S3. 
"The deep." Luke viii. 31. "A place of tor- 
ment." Luke xvi. 28. "A prison." 1 Pet. iii. 
19. "The mist of darkness." 2 Pet. ii. 17. 
"The blackness of darkness." Jude 13. "Bot- 
tomless pit." Rev. ix. 1 and xx. 3. "Perdition " 
Rev. xvii. 11. "Lake of fire and brimstone." 
Rev. xx. 10. "The second death." Rev. xx. 14 
"Lake of fire." Rev. xx. 15. 

To these twenty names of the place of fu- 
ture wo, I shall add twenty -four objections to 
the final salvation of all men. And, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION 193 

1. St. Paul,, in writing to the Gentile eon- 
verts at Corinth^ said, "If any man love not the 
Lord Jesus Christ let him be Anathema, Maran- 
atha." 1 Cor. xvi. 22. These two words, 
which signify excommunication by our Lord at 
his comings are in the Greek and Syriac lan- 
guages to shew that neither Jew nor Gentile, 
shall be accepted. From these words it is man- 
ifest that all the Jews and Gentiles who shall 
neglect to love Christ, shall be excluded from 
the church by him at his coming to judge the 
world. 

2. Paul, in his second epistle to the Corinthi- 
ans, (2 Cor. ii. 15, 16.) in speaking of the la- 
bour of ministers, says, ^For we are unto God a 
sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved, 
and in them that perish. To the one we are 
the savour of death unto death; and to the other 
the savour of life unto life.' In these words 
we have the final state of the righteous, and the 
wicked 'set forth in contrast; the former is saved, 
has life; the latter is lost, perished. These ex- 
pressions cannot be legitimately understood so 
as to accord with the final salvation of the right- 
eous and the wicked, but must stand in direct 
opposition to the doctrine of Universalism. 

3. In speaking of the final state of the wick- 
ed, Paul says, c Whose end is destruction, whose 
god is their belly, and whose glory is their 
shame, who mind earthly things.' Phil. iii. 19. 
If the end of a man is destruction, it certainly 
cannot be salvation. This is a clear case. To 
say this is the destruction of the body would 
confound the righteous with the wicked* and 



194 THEOLOGICAL discussion 



make no distinction between them as the bodies 
of all the righteous shall be destroyed in the 
grave. Consequently, this passage of scrip- 
ture is directly opposed to Universalism. 

4. In the epistle to the Hebrews, (Heb. vi. 8*) 
we are informed that, f that which beareth thorns 
and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; 
whose end is to be burned.' If to be rejected, 
and to be burned means salvation, and the en- 
joyment of God in heaven, we may as well 
burn our bibles at once, and have done with 
them; as we do not know when to take a word 
in its literal signification, figurative meaning, or 
just the reverse of its common meaning, unless 
we have it explained by some of the oracles of 
the heresy of Universalism. 

5. Peter in describing the dreadful state of an 
apostate says, the latter end is worse with them 
than the beginning. For it had been better for 
them not to have known the way of righteous- 
ness, than, after having known it, to turn from 
the holy commandment, delivered unto them/ 
2 Pet. ii. 20. This text shews that the final 
state of an apostate is worse than the beginning, 
and consequently stands as an insurmountable 
difficulty in the way of Universalism. 

6. Our Lord, in speaking of the wicked con- 
duct of Judas, said, c But woe unto that man by 
whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been 
good for that man if he had not been born.' 
Matt. xxvi. 24. If Judas shall ever enter the 
kingdom of glory, and dwell in it to intermina- 
ble ages, it would not be true to say,' it had 
been good for him not to be born, for it certainly 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



195 



will bo good for all that enter heaven,, that they 
were born. Hence, our Saviour's words con- 
cerning- Judas, cannot be true, only on the con- 
dition that he shall be finally lost. This is as 
clear as language can make it. 

7. Paul says, that Hhey that will be rich fall 
into temptation and a snare, and into many fool- 
ish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in de- 
struction and perdition.' 1 Tim. vi. 9. This 
destruction and perdition express the final state 
of the sinner, and as there can be no state af- 
ter the final one, there can be no salvation 
after this perdition. 

8. In Matt. xxv. 30, we are informed that 
the unprofitable servant will be cast into outer 
darkness, where there shall be weeping and 
gnashing of teeth.' This text shews what will 
be done to the wicked, at the time their charac- 
ter shall be investigated by the Supreme judge, 
and as this is represented to us as the final state 
of the man we have just reason to consider it as 
being irreconciliable with Universalism. 

9. In John xv. 6. Jesus says, f If a man abide 
not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is 
withered; and men gather them, and cast them 
into the fire, and they are burned.' This meta- 
phor is evidently intended to point out the last 
state of the finally impenitent, and cannot be 
explained in accordance with final happiness, 
without destroying its whole force and meaning. 
To explain this of the destruction or burning of 
the body would equally destroy the force and 
meaning of the passage. Therefore, it must be 
understood of endless misery. 

10. In Rom. xiv. 15. Paul says, ^destroy not. 
35 



196 THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION. 

him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.' The 
doctrine of these words is this; a man, for whom 
Christ died, maybe destroyed; and if destroyed, 
he is utterly ruined. Consequently, his salva- 
tion is inconsistent with his destruction. 

11. In 1 Cor. viii. 10, 11, Paul cautions the 
well informed christians of Corinth, concerning 
the eating of meat offered to idols, and says, 
'For if any man see thee, which hast knowl- 
edge, sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not 
the conscience of him which is weak, be em- 
boldened to eat those things which are offered to 
idols; and through thy knowledge, shall the weak 
brother perish for whom Christ died?' The 
word perish, in this passage must mean endless 
misery, as it is the same that is employed in 
Johniii. 16, where it is said, f he that believeth 
on him (Christ) shall not perish, but have ever- 
lasting life.' 

12. The apostle Paul says, 'If our gospel be 
hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the 
god of this world hath blinded the minds of them 
which believe not, lest the light of the glorious 
gospel of Christ who is the image of God, should 
shine 'unto them.' The lost mentioned in this 
place, are those who are led away in spiritual 
darkness, by the god of this world; and the 
meaning of the word lost, may be seen by our 
Lord's use of it, in reference to Judas, where he 
said I have lost none except the son of perdi- 
tion. 

13. In Heb. x. 39, it is said in reference to the 
Hebrew converts, 'But we are not of them who 
draw back to perdition; but of them that believe 
to the salvation of the soul.' From these words 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 197 



we may learn: 1. That it is possible to draw- 
back to perdition. 2. That this perdition is the last 
state of the individual, as it is set in contrast 
with salvation. 3. As salvation is the final 
state of the believer, so destruction is the final 
state of the apostate. The miserable subterfuge 
of a temporal application of this passage, will 
not satisfy any enquiring mind. 

14. Our Saviour asks this question; 'What is 
a man advantaged,, if he gain the whole world, 
and lose himself, or be cast away? The mean- 
ing of this question is this; a man that has gain- 
ed all the temporal pleasures and enjoyments of 
this present world, at the expense of being cast 
to endless perdition at the day of judgment, has 
gained no advantage. Therefore, this passage 
is at varience with that doctrine which teaches 
that no man can lose himself, or be cast away. 

15. The apostle James, in speaking of the 
unmerciful man, says, 'he shall have judgment 
without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and 
mer cy rejoiceth against judgment.' Jam. ii. 13. 
How judgment can be inflicted on a man with- 
out mercy, and the man be eternally saved, is 
rather difficult for me to comprehend. Some 
hypercritic of the Universalist order, perhaps, 
will give us an explanation of it, and prove to us 
that it is all mercy. 

16. In the book of Proverbs (Prov. vi. 15.) 
it said of the wicked that his calamity shall 
come suddenly; and 'suddenly shall he be broken 
without remedy.' If he is to be destroyed or 
ruined without remedy, I cannot see how his sal- 
vation is to be accomplished. 

17. Our blessed Saviour has said, 'Verily I 

36 



198 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

say unto you, except ye be converted, and be- 
come as little children, ye shall not enteT into* 
the kingdom of heaven.' Matt, xviii. 3. In con- 
sidering- this, we may observe: 1 . That no man 
can enter the kingdom of heaven without con- 
version is positively asserted. 2. Conversion is 
a contingent thing, depending on the fulfilment 
of certain conditions. Now if these conditions 
shall not be complied with, conversion shall not 
take place, and if there is no conversion there 
can be no admission at the gates of heaven* 
Hence, Universalism falls to the ground. 

18. Of like import to the latter objection are 
those words in John iii. 3, where it is said, ex- 
cept a man be born again he cannot enter the 
kingdom of God. The remarks on the last 
will apply with equal force to this passage. 

19. When our Saviour sent his apostles to 
preach the gospel, he commanded them to preach 
it to every creature, and added, he that believeth, 
and is baptised, shall be saved, and he that be- 
lieveth not shall be damned.' Mark xvi. 15, 16, 
In these words the final state of the believer, 
and unbeliever are contrasted; the one shall be 
saved, and the other shall be damned. Now we 
have no more reason to believe that the unbe- 
liever shall enter into a different state of being 
after his damnation, than we have to believe 
that the believer shall enter into a different state 
of being after his salvation. Consequently,. 
Universalism is overthrown. 

20- In John hi. 36, we have the final state of 
the believer, and unbeliever contrasted, as in the 
last objection, where it said, tf He that believeth 
onthe Son hath everlasting life; and he that be 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. f'9D 

lieveth not the Son shall not see life; but the 
wrath of God abideth on him.' If the wrath of 
God abideth on him it is difficult to comprehend 
how he is to be saved. 

21. Paul says, in addressing the Corinthians, 
^Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not in- 
herit the kingdom of God. Be not deceived, 
neither idolaters * * * nor thieves, nor covetous, 
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall 
inherit the kingdom of God.' 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, 
iNow, to say that the above characters who die 
in that condition, shall inherit the kingdom of 
: God, is to contradict the apostle in as plain a 
manner as language will admit of. And to the 
man who can do so I have nothing to say, but 
shall leave it to the public to judge in the mat- 
ter. 

22. In the epistle to the Galatians, the apos- 
tle enumerates a number of crimes, and then, 
says that they who do such things shalijiot in- 
herit the kingdom of God.' Gal. v. 21. See 
also Eph. v. 5. If those sinners who habitually 
commit such crimes as the apostle mentioned, 
should ever enter the kingdom of heaven, his 
declaration must be false; for, he has declared 
clearly and distinctly that they shall not inherit 
the kingdom of heaven. This is affirmed with- 
out relation to any given period of time. 

23. In Rom. vi. 22, the end of the righteous 
is said to be everlasting life. But in Phil, iii, 
19, the end of the wicked is said to be de- 
struction. On these texts it may be remarked 
that, the final state of the righteous and the 
wicked is called the end. Now as there is no 
state of existence after the end of a man, and 



200 



THEOLOGICAL DISCTTSSlOlf. 



as the end of the one is everlasting life, and the 
end of the other destruction; the downfall of 
Universalism follows. 

24. The following passages of scripture ex- 
press the final states of men,, and if finals then 
there is no possibility of another state succeeding 
it. Prov. iii. 35; x. 28; xi. 6, 9; xiv. 32; Dan xii* 
2; Matt. iii. 12; vii. 13, 14; xiii. 30; John iii. 16; 
Rom. ix. 20—23; 2 Tim. ii. 20; Gal. vi. 1, 8.— 
That the above texts do speak of the final state 
of men is obvious ; 1 . The state of the righteous 
is allowed to be final, bat the state of the wicked 
is all along put in contrast as to happiness. 2. 
These texts are totally silent as to any other state 
following thnt of destruction,, damnation, &c. 3. 
The language of the greater part of them is in- 
consistent with any other state to follow. 
Yours in the bonds of the gospel. 

Joseph M'Kee. 



LETTER No. X. 

.Baltimore, Feb. 10, 1835. 
To Rev. Joseph McKee\ 

Dear Sir—The receipt of your present 
letteT has afforded me the highest satisfaction. — 
It is free, almost entirely free,, from all personal 
remarks and uncharitable allusions to the doctrine 
and denomination which you oppose. This is as it 
should be; for nothing can be more improper, than 
bitter, personal invective, when discussing that 
religion which is emphatically called, the 'gospel 
of peace;' and nothing has given me more pain, 
than the necessity of noticing the personal charges 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 201 

which you have dealt out in such great profusion. 
I now hope for better things. 

That the scriptures teach that the ungodly 
shall be punished in proportion to their moral de- 
linquency; and that there are the various grades 
of characters which you state is readily conceded, 
and of course, that there are various degrees of 
punishment. This is the very doctrine for which 
Universalists have always contended; and which 
their opposers have uniformly denied. We have 
been told, that sin is infinite, because against an 
infinite God, the violation of an infinite law, that 
it could not be forgiven without an infinite atone- 
ment, and that it deserved an infinite punishment, 
all of which it appears you reject. But in throw- 
ing aside these absurdities, you have been com- 
pelled to adopt one equally as great, viz. "that 
the degrees of punishment are not degrees of time, 
but of severity." By what course of reasoning, 
such a conclusion could be sustained, I am unable 
to conceive. 1. It could not be on the ground of 
justice; for there would be no proportion between 
an endless pain, and the sin of a few moments. 
Could you say, with the Rev. Wilbur Fisk, and 
Methodists in general, that the turpitude of an 
act is measured by the dignity of the being of- 
fended, you would, if able to sustain this, show 
the justice of endless wo. But since you measure 
sin by the light and knowledge of the sinner, I 
regard it as utterly impossible to show the justice 
of interminable punishment. 2. It could not be 
on the ground of utility ; for as God does not af- 
flict willingly, it could be no satisfaction to him, 
and as saints would be safely lodged in heaven, 
it could not be necessary to their virtue. 3. It 
36* 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



could not be on the principle of revenge or retali- 
ation^ as you say future punishment is ; for this 
would be rousing the Governor of heaven to end- 
less anger , for the sin of a moment. Not only so,, 
God is immutable^ and cannot be angry in the 
sense you say. 

Besides,, why should the Deity, who Wills the 
salvation of all men., whose nature is love, and 
who sent his Son to save the world, perpetuate 
punishment eternally^ when it destroys Iiis pur- 
pose, and prevents the accomplishment of his 
will? Paul differs with you entirely on this sub- 
ject. He declares that God chastens for our pro- 
fit, not like some earthly fathers for his pleasure; 
and as there is no profit in endless punishment, 
it must be limited in time, as well as various in 
degree. Hence God says, he will not contend 
forever, Isa. 1. 16; that tears shall be wiped from 
all faces, Isa. xxv. 8; and that death, the last ene- 
my, shall be destroyed, 1 Cor. 15". Punishment, 
therefore, is, beyond all doubt, limited in duration. 

As it respects your 20 names of the place of 
fnture wo, I will only observe, that assertion will 
not, in this discussion, be admitted as argument. 
First prove that these twenty texts relate to the 
future world, before you talk of the names by 
which you suppose hell is designated. I will 
only add, several of these texts I have in this dis- 
cussion proved, relate to this world, and the rest 
have been so explained by Pearce, Clarke, Ham- 
mond, Lightfoot, Kenrick, Cappe, Gilpin, &c. — 
Thus do you contradict in your explanations, not 
only Clarke, but all distinguished commentators* 
I deny, sir, that a single text out of your twenty^ 
has referenr-A to the future world; and until von 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 203 



prove that they have,, they must go for what your 
assertion is worth. 

I will now proceed to an examination of the 
twenty- four passages which you have brought 
against Universal ism. 

1. 1 Cor. xvi. 22. On this Clarke says: "Does 
not the apostle refer to the last verse in the Bi- 
ble? 4 ' Lest ! come and smite the land with a 
curse." And does he not intimate that the Lord 
was coming to smite the Jewish land with that 
curse, which took place a very few years after, 
and continues on that gainsaying and rebellious 
people to the present day? What the apostle has 
said was prophetic, and indicative of what was 
about to happen to that people. God was then 
coming to innct punishment upon them. He 
came and they were broken and dispersed. 55 — 
Note in Zoc. 

Hammond., Pyle, Wakefield and Rossenmul- 
ler, refer it simply to casting out of the Church. 
As it respects your definition of Maranatha, it is 
entirly unfounded. Parkhurst says, it means sim- 
ply, "cursed art thou." Shall I take all these au- 
thorities, or your word ? 

2. 2 Cor. ii. 1£, 16. "We are unto God a 
sweet savour.," &c. Here you assume that saved 
signifies endless happiness, and perish endless 
death, But the apostle says, "in them that are 
saved." The fact is., from the Roman custom of 
giving " grand triumphs" to those generals who 
obtained great victories, the apostle drew a figure 
to illustrate the effects of preaching. At these 
triumphs, the odor of the incense and smoke of 
the sacrifices, filled the whole city. And as these 
were a savour of life, to the conquerors, so they 

37 



204 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION" • 



were a sovour of death to the conquered. Thus 
it was with the Gospel ; to the believer it was 
the savour of life., to the unbeliever of death. But 
as life and death are common terms to express 
the moral condition of saints and sinners on earthy 
the text proves nothing respecting" the future 
state. ec We know that we have passed from 
death unto life." " Dead in sin." 6i He that 
believeth hath life." This explanation is con- 
firmed by Home; Gilpin and Hammond. The 
latter says : — " For by our preaching the gospel^ 
we perform a very acceptable service to God, 
and bring in glory to his name, offer up a sweet 
smelling sacrifice unto him among all sorts of 
peopIe 3 both among the penitent believers which 
receive the laith, and live according to it, and 
the impenitent unbelievers that receive it not^ 
For though this sweet perfume, to the obstinate 
impenitent hath been the most perfect poison, 
(as high perfumes sometimes are,) they have 
grown the worse for the gospel's coming among 
them;, yet to all that have forsaken their old 
courses of sin, and obeyed this ceil! to a new life, 
it hath been the most comfortable vital savour- 
that ever came to them. 5 ' 

3. Phil. iii. 19. "Whose end is destruction." 
Pyle explains this as follows :— ec Their notions 
and views of religion are all temporal, and their 
chief aim is at the gratification of their sensual 
appetites and pleasures ; they boast in what they 
ought to be ashamed of; and, for such irreclaim- 
able prejudices and practices, God will destroy 
their whole nation with a most exemplary des- 
truction.." Par, in Joe. Whitby is of the same 
opinion. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



205 



Your argument j that destruction cannot mean 
temporal death, because the good also die, stands 
opposed to two facts. 1. The god of these peo- 
ple was their belly — that is, they were sensual, 
and devoted to the gratification of their appetites 
and passions. And are not such people now de- 
stroyed ? Alas ! See the thousands hurrying to 
an untimely grave. 2. Temporal destruction is 
often threatened as a punishment. This none 
will deny. And is it not a punishment, a sore 
punishment ? So it was regarded under the old 
dispensation, and so it is now regarded. The fact 
that the good must also die, does not affect this 
in the least, because to die, as a punishment, and 
a natural death, are two things quite different. — ■ 
Your argument, therefore, is fallacious ; for the 
end of these people was temporal destruction. — 
The apostle speaks of their temporal, not their 
eternal end. 

4. Heb. vi.8. "Is nigh unto cursing." On this 
Dr. Clarke says : — "It is acknowledged, almost 
on all hands, that this epistle was Written before 
the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.— 
This verse is, in my opinion, a proof of it ; and 
here I suppose the apostle refers to that approach- 
ing destruction, and perhaps he has this all along 
in view, but speaks of it covertly, that he might 
not give offence." 

He then adds, 'there is a good sense in which all 
these things may be applied to the Jews at large;' 
and after showing this application he saj^s, f the 
Jewish nation was then nigh unto cursing, about 
to be cut off from tbe divine protection, and their 
city and temple were about tp be burnt up by the 
Roman armies.' Thus sir, the text agrees with 



206 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



Universalism even though 'rejected' and 'burned/ 
do not mean saved ; for there are rejections and 
burnings , besides endless .wo. Had you nothing 
but such a turn to give in justification of your 
view of this text ? This is all you have given !. 
Oh how weak is error ! how feeble all the argu- 
ments by which it is supported! 

5. 2 Pet. ii. 20. "The latter end is worse with 
them than the beginning." As Peter was speak- 
ing of apostates, and showing that their character 
after apostacy, was worse than before, I need of- 
fer nothing on this text. By their latter end, he 
means, as the context shows, not their final state* 
but their state as apostates. So says Kenrick. 

6. Matt. xxvi. 24. Judas. According to your 
application of this text, there are two startling 
and awful facts: 1 .That Judas was born and raised 
up to betray Christ, and for fulfilling the purpose 
of God in this, was sent to an endless hell. If 
this be not reprobation with a vengeance, then I 
know not what is. Say no more, Sir, against 
Calvinism, while you argue for such a doctrine. 
2. That the endless ruin of one man was essen- 
tial to the salvation of others. "Offences must 
needs come, but wo unto that man by whom they 
come." 

Now, sir, rather than adopt two such awful 
conclusions, I would say, that our Lord used a 
proverbial expression, common among the Jews r 
when any great calamity was about to fall on an 
individual. Expressions of this nature were fre- 
quent. Hence they said of people who surmount- 
ed great difficulties or performed great things,, 
they had removed a mountain ; and from this; 
Paul borrowed his figure in 2 Cor. xiii. 2, and 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



207 



the Saviourln Matt. xxi. 21. So Jeremiah and 
Job curse the day of their birth, and declared that 
they had better never deen born; not from the 
fear of endless wo however, but in consequence 
of the trifling ills of life; and Solomon says, that 
an untimely birth is better than to be the father 
t)f many children, and live an hundred years, if 
they are years of misery. Here we see, that So- 
lomon, Job, and Jeremiah used the same language, 
us that used by the Saviour, and in reference to 
temporal evils. Is it not evident that Jesus spake 
in the same sense with them, meaning, that some 
awful calamity was to fall upon Judas ? 

On this Clarke says : ee 6 Woe unto that man 
by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been 
good for that man if he had not been born V I 
have considered this saying in a general point of 
view, in my note on Matt. xxvi. 24, and were it 
not a proverbial form of speech, among the Jews,, 
to express the state of any flagrant transgressor, 
I should be led to apply it, in all its literal import, 
to the case of Judas, as I have done in the above 
note to the case of any damned soul; but when I 
find it was a proverbial saying, and that it has 
been used in many cases where the fixing of the 
irreversible doom of a sinner is not implied, it may 
be capable of a more favourable interpretation than 
what is generally given to it. 1 ' He also adds : — 
i( The utmost that can be said of the case of Ju- 
das is this : he committed a heinous act of sin 
and ingratitude, but he repented and did what he 
could to undo his wicked act: he had committed 
the sin unto death, i. e., a sin that involves the 
death of the body ; but who can say, (if mercy 
was offered to Christ's murderers, and the gospel 



208 THEOLOGCIAL DISCUSSION. 



was first to be preached at Jerusalem., that these 
very murderers might have the first offer of sal- 
vation through him whom they had pierced,) that 
the same mercy could not be extended to wretch- 
ed Judas ? I contend that the chief priests, &c, 
who instigated Judas to deliver up his Master, 
and who crucified him, and who crucified him too 
as a malefactor, having at the same time the 
most indubitable evidence of his innocence, were 
worse men than Judas Iscariot himself ; and that 
if mercy was extended to those, the wretched, 
penitent traitor did not die out of the yearning of 
his bowels. And I contend farther, that there is 
no evidence of the final damnation of Judas in the 
sacred text." Note in Jin. jtfcts, chap. i. 

7. 1 Tim. vi. 7. The remarks under our 
third head are equally applicable to this ; and if 
they were not, I see no reason for answering so 
many assumptions. You have assumed that the 
destruction in the text means endless wo. Have 
you any proof of this ? 

8. Matt. xxv. 30. See this explained in letter 
No. vii., 8th head. 

9 ; John xv. 6. "Cast them into the fire, and 
they are burned." On this text you make several 
assertions, but as they are backed up by no proof, 
they must go for assertions, not for arguments. — 
Under the figure of the vine and its branches, 
Christ represents himself and disciples ; the cut- 
ting off and burning the branches, he uses as a 
figure of cutting off and destroying unfaithful 
christians. We have frequently shown in this 
discussion how apostates were destro) T ed, and 
that fire was a common figure to represent the 
destruction, Such, we believe, is the case here, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 209 

At any rate, nothing is said of another world. — 
Your assertion, therefore, is unfounded. 

10. Rom. xiv. 15. "Destroy not him with thy 
meat," &c. Here you assume that destroy means 
endless punishment, but as there are so many 
destructions mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, 
proof is requisite to sustain your assumption. The 
words, it seems, were spoken, in consequence of a 
division respecting the use of meat; some being 
for and some against it. The word destroy is 
used to express the effect which eating meat 
might have on those who considered it wrong ; 
and is synonymous with stumble and fall, (v. 13.) 
with ^offended' and f made weak' (v. 21.) He that 
can discover the doctrine of endless wo in any of 
these words, must have a remarkably penetrating 
mind. They certainly say nothing of another 
world, but simply relate to some being offended, 
because others ate what they considered unclean 
and forbidden of God. 

11.1 Cor. viii. 10, 11. 'Perish.' This word is 
used in a variety of senses ; but the most frequent 
is death. As the apostle is here discussing the 
same subject as in Rom. xiv. 15, and as he uses 
the same figures, we will only add in the lan- 
guage of Gill : "The perishing of this weak bro- 
ther is to be understood of his peace and comfort, 
and is explained by defiling his conscience, ver. 7, 
by wounding it, ver. 12, and making him to of- 
fend, v. 13, through an imprudent use of christian 
liberty in those who had the greater knowledge, 
and by a participation of things offered unto idols 
in an idol's temple, and not of his eternal damna- 
tion in hell, which could never enter into the apos- 
tle's thought, as to be brought about hereby, as 
appears from ver. 8," &,c. Expos, in loc. 



210 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

12. 2 Cor. iv. 3. " Hid to them that are lost." 
The only thing- on which you rely here is the 
word lost. Now as Christ came to seek and 
save the lost, and as the prodigal son was lost 
and found again, no argument can be drawn from 
this word against Universalism. The meaning 
of the text is thus expressed by Pyle : " Nor can 
what I have preached and written to you be de- 
nied to be the sincere gospel truths unless by such 
sensual and profligate men, whose affections 
are so wedded to their temporal ends and advan- 
tages, that they have no relish of the wise and 
glorious purposes of the religion of Jesus Christ, 
the Son of God, the image of the Father, and the 
revealer of his true and last will to mankind." — 
Par. in lot. 

13. Heb. x. 39. "Draw back to perdition." — 
As though not satisfied with the arguments, by 
which you sustain your application of this text, 
you must cry out, in relation to our views of it, 
'miserable subterfuge.' O when will men 
men learn to be candid and charitable ! That this 
means temporal destruction, at the siege of Jerusa- 
lem, is evident, 1. Because the Christians were 
then suffering great persecution and many in con- 
sequence were slinking away from Christ and his 
cause. Of these, the apostle says, "We are not." 
2. In verse 27 it is said "Yet a little while, and 
he that shall come will come," &c. which Clarke 
refers to Christ's coming to execute judgment 
upon the Jews. 3. They had need of patience 
because they could not receive the promise until 
Christ's coming. Hence they had need of pa- 
tience to endure their trials. 4. "To the saving 
of the soul," Clarke explains, to the "preserva- 
tion of the life," thus showing that both the sal- 



THEOLOGICAL D19CTJSS10H 211 



vation and perdition were temporal. Your three 
arguments therefore have no foundation. 

14. Matt. xvi. 26. " Lose his soul." On this 
Clarke says : "By what authority our translators 
rendered psuche, soul, I know not : for it is the 
same word which, in the verse preceding, is 
twice rendered life." That it simply means ani- 
mal life is evident from the situation of the 
christians. They were in a state of great perse- 
cution^ from which they were to be delivered at 
Christ's coming. At this time the persecutors 
were to be destroyed. Hence the declaration, if 
they sought to save their lives,, that is, if they 
renounced Christ for safety, they should lose 
their lives. But if they would lose, or live as 
though they would lose their lives, that is, give 
up all for Christ, they should save them. These 
words proved true, for not a single christian suf- 
fered in the siege of Jerusalem. To render this 
the more impressive, Christ adds, "What will it 
profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose 
his own soul, (life) or what shall a man give in 
exchange for his soul? (life.) This explanation 
is unquestionable, because the text refers to 
Christ's second coming. Hence the verse fol- 
lowing (27) says, the Son of man shall come be- 
fore that generation shall pass away. Your pa- 
raphrase therefore is fallacious. That a person 
who reads Greek should refer this text to the fu- 
ture world, seems incredible ! Why sir, you are 
a century behind the age, and a dozen, I was 
about to say, behind Clarke. 

15. James ii. 13. "Judgment without mercy." 
To show your entire misrepresentation of this 
text, it is only necessary to observe 1 . That the 



2H THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



epistle of James was addressed to the twelve 
tribes, which were "scattered abroad" — that is, 
the twelve tribes of the Jews. 2. The epistle is 
chiefly occupied to the commencement of the fifth 
chapter, in giving advice to the brethren scattered 
abroad, in instructing them how to conduct them- 
selves under their trials, in encouraging them to 
persevere, and in assuring them of their reward. 
3. The fifth chapter begins by denouncing in pro- 
phetic style, judgments upon the rich, those who 
had defrauded the labourer, and killed the just ; 
which judgment Clarke refers, to the destruction 
of Jerusalem. And that he is right is evident 
from the declaration, ee Be patient therefore, bre- 
thren, unto the coming of the Lord." Thus sir, 
the judgment without mercy is seen, not to be 
endless wo, but that awful calamity which came 
upon the Jews, at the destruction of their city. 
The circumstances and^ facts we have noticed, 
place this beyond dispute. Your sneer, therefore, 
and assertion that Universalists will make the judg 
ment all mercy, is quite foreign from the truth. 

16. Prov. vi. 15. "Broken without remedy." 
As this breaking is called a sudden calamity, I 
should think it an insult to the reader to offer any 
argument to show that it signified any more than 
cutting off from the earth, if even this. A man 
guilty of the vices mentioned here,is suddenly bro - 
ken ; and he is rendered so odious and contempt- 
ible in the eyes of the people, that there is no re- 
storing him to his former standing. He is bro- 
ken without remedy. This is especially the 
case with a man who has shed innocent blood, 
(v. 20) he can have no mitigation of his punish- 
ment; for his case there is no remedy. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 213 

17. Matt, xviii. 3. As the kingdom of heaven — 
here means the gospel kingdom on earthy ac- 
cording to nearly all commentators, this can prove 
nothing concerning the future world. Besides, if 
it referred to the kingdom above, it would be no 
argument against Universalism ; for the Psalmist 
says, (Psal. 22, 27) all the ends of the earth shall 
remember, and turn unto the Lord; Isaiah (xlv. 
23,) every knee shall bow and tongue confess that 
in the Lord they have righteousness and strength; 
the Saviour that he will draw all men unto him, 
(John xii. 32.) St. Paul, that God shall gather 
together all things in heaven and on earth, (Eph. 
i. 10;) and the Revelator (Rev. v. 13.) that eve- 
ry creature in heaven and on the earth, and un- 
der the earth, and in the sea, and all that in 
them are, shall sing the song of redeeming grace. 
Reformatiion, therefore, will be universal. 

18. John iii. 3. This is answered under the 
above head. 

19. Mark xvi. 15, 16. "He that believeth not 
shall be damned." The word damned is no proof 
of endless wo, because it is synonymous with con- 
demned. "He that believeth not is condemned 
already." It simply, therefore, expresses the 
consequence of unbelief, without any regard to its 
duration. So with the word saved ; it is synon- 
ymous with life, peace, rest, joy. Thus, he that 
believeth hath life. The text then, simply ex- 
presses the effects of receiving and of refusing 
the gospel, and has not the remotest reference to 
man's rinal state. Should it be said the tense, 
shall be damned, disproves this, I answer, the 
preaching of the gospel was future ; and the fu- 
ture tense was of necessity used. Go ye and 

38 



214 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 

preach , he that believes, &c. Hence when the 
Gospel was preached,, then would be the life or 
salvation, and then the condemnation. The text 
therefore decides what future time was intended. 
When speaking of preaching- and believing in the 
present tense, the present tense is used in express- 
ing their effects. Thus, 'he that believeth on the 
Son hath everlasting life.' The same tense is 
used in expressing the effect sof unbelief. 'This 
is the condemnation.'' The wrath of God abideth 
on the unbeliever. All these passages are of the 
same import; and they teach, as we see, not the 
final condition of men, but that to have the 
life of Christ, we must believe; and that con- 
demnation and wo are upon all unbelievers. — 
Hence he that believeth not, shall not see life — 
that is, no man can see life in unbelief. Faith is 
the medium through which spiritual life enters 
the soul. That I am right, is evident, because 
many who first heard the Gospel and believed, 
afterwards fell back. Their salvation then was 
limited. While on the other hand, many who 
first rejected it, afterwards believed. Their con- 
demnation then was limited. Besides, if we say 
the damnation and salvation express the final 
condition of mankind, we must say first, that all 
will be lost, who are not baptized., for the text 
makes this essential ; second, we must say, that 
the heathen will be lost, for they do not believe. 
Are you prepared, Sir, to adopt such awful con- 
clusions ? If so, give us something besides as- 
sertion for their support. This is all you have 
given to prove your application of this text. 

20. John iii. 36 is answered under the above 
head. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 215 

21. 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10 teaches not the impossi- 
bility of idolitars, &c. being regenerated, but the 
impossibility of their entering the kingdom with- 
out regeneration. "Know ye not that the unrigh- 
teous, &c. shall not inherit the kingdom ?" He 
then adds: "And such were some of you; but now 
ye are washed," &c. Having been washed, they 
had entered the kingdom. Paul therefore, ex- 
plains this subject satisfactorily and plainly. 

22. Gal. v. 21 is the same as the above. 

23. Rom. vi. 22. As I have explained the text 
which you quote (Phil. iii. 19,) in connexion with 
this, I need add nothing here, only to observe, 
that it remains to be proved, that the end cf 
which the apostle was speaking in Rom. vi. 22, 
was endless life ; and also if it were, that this is 
an argument in favour of your inference. The 
end of a man in the Bible, usually signifies his 
death. Why not give us direct testimony to sus- 
tain your doctrine, and not rest it on inference ? 
At least, do not take for granted the premises, 
from which your inferences are drawn. 

24. Under this head, you say, " The follow- 
ing passages express the final state of man ; and 
if final," &c. Now as several of these have 
already been explained ; and as you have given 
no answer to these explanations, I will not waste 
time in replying to texts thus assumed. Besides 
several commentator differs with you on these 
texts; not only so, some as you apply them, teach 
old fashioned Calvinism. I deny that the texts 
refer to man's final state ; and as all your infer* 
ences rest on the assumed position that they dd> 
your argument falls to the ground. 

Thus Sir, as in letter No. vii. I hare repMeii 



$16 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

assumption after assumption. And if you are dis- 
posed to continue the controversy in this way, I 
shall not object, fjr my task is easy, and the 
reader cannot fail of seeing the sandy foundation 
on which your partial system is built. 

I am, &c. 

Otis A. Skinner. 



LETTER No. XL 

Bell Air,, Feb. 14, 1835. 

To Rev. Otis A. Skinner: 

Dear Sir — On a careful review of your 
sixth letter, I find several particulars that re- 
quire some critical remarks. 

Your criticism on olam is not only irrele- 
vant but erroneous and absurd. The following 
are your own words: 'You admit that olam in 
Daniel is the same as aionios in Matth. (though 
you denied this in letter, No. 1.) It is mor- 
ally certain then, that both refer to the same 
event — c the destruction of Jerusalem. 5 " To 
this, I reply, 1. I did not at any time admit that 
olam in Dan. is the same as aionios in Matth. 
I said that olam in the Heb. of Dan. was render- 
ed aionios, by the translators of the Septuagint. 
I deny that the seventy were inspired men, "and 
always gave the true sense of the Hebrew in 
their translation. I deny that olam and aionios 
are, in all cases, synonymous. 3. Parkhurst 
says olam signifies 'time indefinite, unknown^ 
or concealed from man, and is used in the Old 
Testament, both in a limited and unlimited 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 217 



sense; 5 while aionios is never used, in the New 
Testament, in a limited sense, except in two 
places (2 Tim. i. 9; Tit. i. 2.) which are vio- 
lently disputed. 2. 1 did not say one syllable 
concerning olam, in my first letter, as any one 
may see 3 by a reference to that letter. There- 
fore, your saying, I denied any thing about 
olam, in my first letter, is a forgery, or false 
quotation. And if this is done with my own 
letters, before my face, what must I think of the 
quotations from unknown authors, where no 
reference to their works is given? It is a pain- 
ful task for me to touch this subject. I do it 
unwillingly, I am compelled to notice it, and I 
perceive that I have not done with it. How- 
ever, I shall not deal in naked assertions, but 
shall demonstrate facts. 3. Your inferences 
drawn from olam are erroneous in consequence 
of the premises being unsound. 

You say that 'the meaning of aionios must 
be determined by the noun to which it is ap- 
plied, and the circumstances under which it is 
used.' This, to say the least, is absurd and 
contrary to the construction and the rules of 
language. I was taught, in my youth, to be- 
lieve that the adjective qualified the noun, and 
defined its meaning; and not that the noun pre- 
scribed or defined the signification of the ad- 
jective. But in order to get along with your 
system you are obliged to run into the absurd- 
ity of inverting the established order of lan- 
guage. This will be sufficiently evident to 
every discerning reader, and duly estimated. 

Your various definitions of aionios are mere 
assumptions, without any authority from lexi- 



g!8 THEOLOGICAL PISCUS3IOW. 



cographers, or from reason, invented, as I be* 
lieve. to make the best of a bad cause, and ren- 
der it somewhat plausible. 

You say, f zoen aionion' signifies the life of 
faith # * * is synonymous with life, entering 
Christ's kingdom, having rest, peace, joy and 
love.' You say, the phrase everlasting life 
does not mean endless life, because the believer 
of to day may be the infidel of to-morrow/ 
I deny that the' believer of to day may be the 
infidel of to morrow. Believers are compo- 
nent parts of Christ's kingdom, as you have 
admitted; and, as his kingdom, in the aggre- 
gate, is indestructible, it must be so in its parts; 
for, whatever can be affirmed of a whole, can 
be affirmed, with equal truth and certainty, of 
all the constituent parts. Besides all this, 
Paul said (Rom- viii. 38, 39.) ^For I am per- 
suaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, 
nor principalities, nor powers, nor thing < pres- 
ent, nor things to come, nor hcighth, nor depth, 
nor any other creature, shall be able to separ- 
ate us from the love of God, which is in Christ 
Jesus our Lord.' But you say, we may be sep- 
arated from the love of God. I leave "the rea- 
der to judge, whether I am to believe the doc- 
trine of an inspired apostle, or the erroneous 
interpretation of scripture which you have 
adopted to support a false system. 

You say eternal life is used to express the 
reward of the primitive christians, after the 
destruction of Jerusalem. This also is mere 
assumption. It is as much the reward of all 
other christians as it is that of the primitive 
christians, as the endless happiness of heaven is 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



21§ 



frequently called a reward (Col. iii 24; Heb. 
xi. 26; Rev. xxii. 12.) by the inspired writers, 
though* in strict propriety no good thing can be 
a reward, but must be a free gift, as no man 
can merit any good thing at the hand of God. 

You refer me to certain texts where, you say 
eternal life means endless life. By your meth- 
od of treating this subject, one man may have 
at least three everlasting lives, i. e. 'the life of 
faith,' 'the reward of tfee primitive christians' 
and 'endless life,' I might, on this plan, prove 
that one man might have fifty everlasting lives. 
The absurdity of these sentiments is a sufficient 
antidote to their baneful effects. 

Your quotation from Clarke -s a perversion 
of his views, fie intended to refute the doc- 
trine of reprobation as held by the predestina- 
rians, and not to defend Universalism by the 
words which you have cited. 

You have, perhaps taken the easiest way of 
passing the unanswerable argument deducible 
from Dan. xii. 2. I deny that our Lord ever 
applied these words to the destruction of Jer- 
usalem, or that he, or any writer of the New 
Testament, ever quoted them under any cir- 
cumstance whatever. 

I find you have turned predestinarian on my 
hand. You say, f you cannot admit that or- 
dained to life, means disposed to life, because, 
ordained (tetagmenoi) is from a Hebrew word, 
which signifies to place, to sit, to appoint' I do 
not admit myself that the English word 'or- 
dained' means 'disposed;' but I do say that the 
Greek word tetagmenoi does mean 'disposed,' 
'adapted' to eternal life, and not fore- ordained 



220 THEOLOGICAL, DISCUSSION 



or predestinated to life, and in this I am fully 
sustained by Parkhurst. You say /other texts 
speak of fore-ordination to life. See Eph. i- 4, 
5, 11; ii. 10; Rom. viil 29, 30.' Now, if you 
believe in the doctrine of the fore-ordination of 
some to everlasting life, (for those texts speak 
only of a part) the rest must be reprobated to 
everlasting misery. How these sentiments can 
he reconciled with the doctrine ef Universalism 
is for you to explain. 

I perceive you have made another pitiful at- 
tempt to explain away the endless signification 
of aionios in Mark. iii. 29. Now, I can prove 
by your own rule of interpretation that aionios, 
in this passage means endless. The account of 
the unpardonable sin, as it is called, is recorded 
by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In Matth. xii. 
31, we are told in the most unequivocal manner 
that the sin against the Holy Ghost shall not 
be forgiven. This is spoken in contrast with 
the sin against the son of man, which shall be 
forgiven. This negative form of speech shews 
incontrovertibly, that there is no forgiveness for 
this sin, at any future period whatever; for, if it 
shall be forgiven at any period included in the 
unlimited bounds oi eternity, it would not be 
true, to S:iy it shall not be forgiven. Now, if 
aionios be explained agreeably to the sense of 
the passage, it must mean unlimited duration. 
The same argument may be drawn from Luke 
xii. 10, if it were necessary, where the two 
sins are contrasted with each other. It is said 
of the sin against the Son of man, that it shall 
be forgiven, and of the sin against the Holy 
Ghost, that it shall not be forgiven. To say 



THEOLOGICAL D1SCUSS10IT 



221 



that both shall be forgiven, would be to over- 
turn and destroy the use and propriety of lan- 
guage, and turn the whole scriptures into one 
mass of confusion. But such are the absurdi- 
ties into which the Universalists are driven, in 
order to render plausible an erroneous system. 

Your answers to my six questions, I consider 
to be nothing but mere evasions. To my ques- 
tion concerning the duration of future misery, 
you answer, 'that you pretend not to he wise 
above what is written.' What is written con- 
cerning its limitation? Its duration is expres- 
sed by the same word whereby the duration of 
the happiness of the righteous is expressed; 
and, not one word can be found in all the Holy 
Scriptures which goes to say, in clear terms, 
that either the one or the other shall ever come 
to an end! To the second question, how can 
you prove that misery is not endless, you an- 
swer c by showing that there is no proof of end- 
less misery.' I deny that this would afford any 
proof that misery is not endless, inasmuch as it 
would prove nothing on the subject. You can 
not prove that there are any inhabitants in the 
moon; but, this is not proof that she is unin- 
habited; ibr, the thing remains undetermined. 
So it is with respect to the proof of future mis- 
cry, should I fail to demonstrate (which will 
be seen to be tar otherwise) the eternity of 
hell's torments, the failure in evidence to sup- 
port the doctrine would be no proof that the 
contrary doctrine is true; for it would only 
leave tne thing undetermined- To my third 
question, what influence the atonement of Christ 
will have on the condition of the damned, you 
S9* 



222 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



say by way of answer, that it shall be the same 
as in this life. That the atonement will have 
any good effect on the damned, in a future stale, 
is unknown to us as it has no support from 
Revelation. I cannot regard such a sentiment 
in any other light than as a human invention 
to support a bad cause. To my third and fourth 
question you answer, you reject the common 
doctrine of the devil, and of course his salva- 
tion. The word diabolos in the plural form oc- 
curs only three times in the New Testament, 
where it is applied metaphorically to human 
beings. 1 Tim. iii. 11, 2 Tim. iii. 8; Tit. ii. 3. 
In the singular, the word generally means the 
arch apostate, the chief enemy of God and 
man, the devil. In this application of it, the 
article is generally added. Possessions are ne- 
ver attributed to the being termed ho diabolos. 
He is always spoken of as only one; and other 
beings, however bad, are never confounded with 
him. Heis termed 'the devil,' 'the evil one/ 
'the tempter' 'the adversary,' 'the dragon,' 'the 
serpent,' 'the prince of this world,' 'prince of 
the power of the air,' 'god of this world.' To 
my sixth question, is Christ, as to his divine 
nature, truly and really God? You say, I be- 
lieve Christ is the Son of God. Now this is 
manifest evasion. The phrase Son of God is 
extremely ambiguous, inasmuch as it is applied 
to a variety of beings. Adam is called the son 
of God. Angels are called sons of God. Be- 
lievers in Christ are called sons of God. 
Jesus, as to his human nature, is called 
the Son of God, the only begotten Son of God, 
God's beloved Son, and the Son of Man. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 223 



And all this without relation to his divine 
nature. That Jesus Christ is both God and 
man is manifest from all those scriptures which 
relate to him. There is one class of scriptures 
which describe him as a servant, and inferior 
to the Father. Now all these may be lairly 
understood in relation to his human nature, and 
his office as mediator. But there is another 
class of scriptures which represent him as equal 
in all respects to the Father, which may he 
fairly understood in reference to his divine na- 
ture. In this latter class of scriptures, all the 
incommunicable names of the infinite Jehovah 
are ascribed to him. All the incommunicable 
perfections of the Supreme Being are ascribed 
to Christ. The work of creation is ascribed 
to our blessed Savior. Divine worship by an- 
gels and men, in earth and heaven, must be 
given to Christ, and has been given to him. 
Therefore, he is truly and properly God; or, all 
the inhabitants of heaven are idolaters. When 
these arguments are summed up, they will prove 
incontestibly that the Redeemer of mankind is 
God, in opposition to the Universaiists, who 
'deny the Lord that brought them' by saying 
he is not the true God. 

I shall now proceed to consider your positive 
proofs of the final salvation of all men. 

You say, c io give endless life to all, would 
be the highest glory of God, and cause grace 
to reign as universally, unto eternal life, as sin 
had reigned unto death.' In these words I find 
nothing but your opinion of the matter, which 
isjio proof of any thing. Another man might be 
of a very different opinion from you, regarding 



S24 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



this subject. It is not your opinion, nor the 
opinion of any man I want; but I want truth. 

You say, 'If all had not endless life in him, 
disbelieving the word would not make (>od a 
liar, for the word would be false.' This is an 
absurd conclusion; for eternal life is suspended 
on the condition of faith, as is manifest from 
our Lord's words in Mark, 'he that helieveth, 
and is baptised, shall be saved, and he that he- 
lieveth not shall be damned' You say, this 
life exists independently of faith.' Where did 
you gain this information? Certainly not in the 
scriptures, for they teach the contrary doctrine. 

After saying several things concerning 
Christ, which have no direct bearing on the 
subject at issue, you say, 'Add to all this, those 
words, strictly endless, which are used to ex- 
press the result of his mission, words never ap- 
plied to sin or misery, and the eternity of life is 
placed beyond dispute.' When you shall have 
the goodness to tell me what those words are, 
which you say are 'strictly endless' or where I 
may find them, I might say something concern- 
ingthem. But till you do this, I must he si- 
lent- The word akatalutou is no proof of the 
endless happiness of the saints, much less does 
it prove the salvation of all men. According 
to Park hurst the word is derived from a nega- 
tive, and katalutos, dissolved, and signifies indis- 
soluble, or not to be dissolve:!. This word oc- 
curs only once in the New Testament, in Heb. 
vii. 16, and relates to the priesthood of Christ, 
where he is said to have been made a priest af- 
ter the power of an endless life. Thi- word can 
no more prove the endless happiness of man- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 225 

kind than the omnipresence and omnipotence of 
Christ can prove the omnipresence and omni- 
potence of mankind. 

The phrase, f As in Adam all die, even so in 
Christ shall all be made alive.' Cor. xv. 22, has 
been very often misapplied by those who quote 
it without considering its connexion in the 
chapter. The apostle's object in the xvth chap- 
ter was to prove to the Corinthians the resur- 
rection of the dead, a doctrine which some of 
them denied. And this being the subject of 
Paul's reasoning in this connexion, it is evident 
to the most superficial reader that the dying in 
Adam, and the being made alive in Christ must 
mean the death and resurrection of the body. - 
The words may be thus paraphrased; as by the 
sin of Adam all his posterity became mortal, 
and subject to temporal death, so by the death 
of Christ all men, both good and bad, shall be 
raised from their graves at the last day, some 
to everlasting life, and some to everlasting con- 
demnation. 

That all shall be raised at the last day, is 
manifest; and that they shall be immortal, that 
is, not subject to the death of the body, any 
mor° is also manifest; but, that all mankind 
shall have endless happiness, is not manifest 
Immortality and eternal life are two words 
coupled together in Rom. ii. 7, the former sig- 
nifying the endless existence of the soul, and 
the latter signifying endless happiness. 

All that shall be counted worthy to obtain the 
state of the blessed in heaven shall be like un- 
to the angels; that is they shall neither marry 
nor be given in marriage; but they shall enjoy 



THEOLOGCIAX DISCUSSION 



a happy immortality. Our Lord spake of the 
church exclusively, as is evident from the 
phrase 'those thai shall he counted worthy/ &c. 
Consequently, this text does not furnish us with 
the least shadow of proof of the final salvation 
of all men. 

After applying to the resurrection state a pas- 
sage in Isai. xxv. which relates to the church 
on earth, and saying that ignorance, death, 
tears, rebuke, &c. shall be unknown, you wind 
up the whole concern by saying, c what is here 
proved of one man, is proved of the wholes 
world.' This conclusion is erroneous. In 
order that such a conclusion should be sound, 
it would be necessary that all the world should 
be included in the one man you mention. Your 
conclusion is altogether illogical; for according 
to your mode of reasoning, whatever can le 
affirmed of a small part may be affirmed of the 
"whole. To test this principle let us try it in 
another way. I could prove that one man has 
three thumbs; but, would you consider it good 
logic, were I to say what I have proved of this 
one man, I have proved of the whole world? I 
could prove that one man is six feet, four inches 
high; but would you think me correct were I to 
say this was proved of all men? You have 
proved that some men shall rise, at the last day 
to everlasting life; but this no more proves that 
all men shall rise in that condition, than I have 
proved that all men have three thumbs each, 
and are six feet lour inches high. Whatever 
can be affirmed of the whole, may be affirmed 
of each of its parts, because each part is inclu- 
ded in the whole. But what may be affirmed 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



227 



of a part may not be affirmed of the whole, 
because the whole is not included in a part. 
Consequently, you will have to find some ether 
proof tor the salvation of all men, besides the 
proofs of the salvation of a few. 

I have already observed, that by rejecting 
aionios as signifying- endless life, you left the 
christian no proof of the endless duration of the 
saints 1 happiness. 

The adjective aphthartos is variously trans- 
lated in the New Testement, as, incorruptible, 
immortal, and occurs only six times. It is de- 
rived from a negative, and phthartos corruptible, 
and signifies incorruptible. It is twice applied 
to the Divine nature of God, Rom.i. 23; 1 Tim. 
i. 17; once to the resurrection body, 1 Cor. xv. 
52; once to the saint's inheritance. 1 Pet. i. 4; 
once to the word of God, (1 Pet. i. 23.) to which 
when aion is applied, it does not mean endless 
duration, according to your last letter; and once 
to the saint's crown of glory, 1 Cor. ix. 25. 
There is no use made of this adjective whereby 
it proves the endless happiness of one single 
man. 

The noun athanasia is derived from a nega- 
tive, and thanatos death, and signifies immor- 
tality. This word occurs only three times in the 
New Testament, and is once applied to God, 
1 Tim. vi. 16; and twice to the resurrection body 
of the saints. 1 Cor. xv. 53, 54. There is 
nothing in this word, to prove endless happiness, 
but merely endless existence. 

The word aphtharsia occurs seven times in 
the New Testament, and is derived from a neg- 
ative, and phtharsh corruption, and signifies in- 



iff THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



corruption, incorruptibility. It is three times ap- 
plied to the resurrection body of the saints. 1 Cor. 
xv. 50, 53, 54. Tj.nce to doctrines. Eph. vi. 
24; Tit. ii. 7. And twice applied to christian 
principle. Rom. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 10. Nothing 
appears in the use of this word to prove endless 
happiness; but only the unchangable state of 
things in the future world. 

The adjective aidios is derived from aei al- 
ways, according to Parkhurst, and signifies eter- 
nal, or endless. This word is employed to ex- 
press the endless nature of the chains that bind 
the fallen angels. Jude 6. If the endless mise- 
ry of devils is satisfactorily proved, which- is 
undeniable in the present case, it affords a strong 
reason to induce us to believe in the endless na- 
ture of human misery, in a future state. This 
word occurs only in one other place, in the New 
Testament, and is employed to express the eter- 
nity of God. Rom. i. 20. 

I am, &c. 

Joseph McKee. 



LETTER No. XI. 

Baltimore, Feb. 24, 1835. 
To Rev. Joseph M'Kee: 

Dear Sir — In this discussion it is un- 
derstood, that I am acting on the defensive, as 
you made the attack on Universaiism, and re- 
quested the privilege of offering your objections 
against it, and of refuting the arguments by 
which it is supported. It is my place then to 
examine what you advance — but since your 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



229 



present letter contains hardly anything which 
requires an answer, I shall devote a portion of 
my reply to those ''arguments" which you are 
so reluctant to approach. Beibre proceeding to 
these, however, 1 will notice, 1. Your reply to 
the following statement of mine — " You admit 
that olam in Dan. xii. 2, and aionios in Matt, 
xxv. 46, are synonymous, though you denied 
this in Letter No. 1." To this you reply — "I 
admitted nothing of the kind*" Then sir, I 
know not the mean-ng of language, for in Let- 
ter No. VI. labouring to show that Dan. xii. 2, 
referred to the eternal world, and was descrip- 
tive of endless bliss and woe, you say : " It is 
worthy of remark, that the duration, both of the 
happiness of the righteous, and contempt of the 
wicked, are expressed by the word olam in the 
Hebrew, aionios in the Greek and everlasting 
in the English." Thus do you assert that olam 
and aionios are the same. 2. You deny saying 
anything of olam in Letter No. I. To place 
this matter fairly before the reader, the follow- 
ing from my first communication must be in- 
serted: 'I am aware that Paul used aionios, or 
everlasting, but, this is applied to hills, moun- 
tains, covenants, priesthoods and a great variety 
of things limited in their nature." To this you 
affect great astonishment, and accuse me of 
writing it to deceive the unlearned. Not sus- 
pecting that you weie resting on a mere quib- 
ble, I replied by saying, lhat the learned ad- 
mitted that aionios and olam are synonymous, 
when lo and behold! it turns out that 1 am ac- 
cused of deceiving, because I did not use thejpre- 
cise word of the inspired writer, and not because 



£30 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



I did not convey his meaning. By this rule I 
can prove that the inspired writers say nothing 
of God or Christ, heaven 01 hell, life or death, 
for they did not use these very words. Olam in 
the Hebrew, aionios in the Greek, and ever- 
lasting; in the English, are used as I said, and if 
the first two are synonymous, as the learned 
admit, and as you have admitted, my argument 
is good, and my assertion true. 

It is a little amusing to hear you insinuate, 
that I have been guilty of some gross perver- 
sions of your language, and that it is painful for 
you to point these out. I beg that your tender 
feelings may not deter you from duty, and es- 
pecially since I have not spared you in this res- 
pect : go on Sir, and give the instances. 

2. In saying that the meaning of aionios must 
be determined by the noun to which it is appli- 
ed, and the circumstances under which it is 
used, I asserted nothing contrary to the rules 
of language. As for instance, when we say a 
great man, a great house, and a £reat moun- 
tain, although the adjective qualifies the noun, 
we decide its extent of meaning in the three 
cases, from the nouns. So with aionios., and so 
all critics admit. My position then, is not 'ab- 
surd,' neither does it 'invert the established or- 
der of language.' 

3. You say my various definitions of aionios 
are assumed, but by turning to Letter No. VI. 
the reader will see that such is not the case. 

4. My assertion that the believer of to-day 
may be the infidel of to-morrow, is denied; and 
this denial is backed up by some foreign state- 
ments respecting the indestructible nature of 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIOX. 



231 



Christ's kingdom. If your position here means 
anything, it is, that saints cannot fall from grace. 
When you will avow this doctrine, I am ready 
to discuss it. Till then, I will not' allow you to 
phi it from Metho \Um to Calvinism, to evade the 
force of my arguments. 

5. I deny that Col. iii. 24 ; Heb. xi. 26 ; Rev. 
xxii. 12, refer to the future state ; and until you 
prove this, all you have said on that head, will 
weigh nothing. That the primitive Christians 
were rewarded, is certain, and I have shown that 
this reward is called 'zoen aionion.' You say by 
my rule, a man can have fifty everlasting lives ; 
but all this is merely playing around the question, 
without attacking the main position — and such is 
the case with your whole letter. 

6. You say, ray quotation from Clarke is a 
perversion. Will you show 7 this? 

7. Your denial that our Lord applied Dan. xii. 
2, to the destruction of Jerusalem, is like deny- 
ing the existence of a God, when nature and re- 
velation declare it in language that none can mis- 
take. The atheist can deny the Divine exist- 
ence, but he cannot sustain his denial, neither 
can you yours. If you can, why not do it ? 

8. On the text "ordained to life," I need only 
remark, that the life to which those were ordain- 
ed, as mentioned in Eph. i. 4, 5, 11 ; ii. 10; 
Rom. viii. 29, 30, is not endless life. See Whit- 
by and Clarke on these. Your inference, there- 
fore, about reprobation is quite too fast. 

0. All you have said on Matt. xii. 31^ respect- 
ing the sin against the Holy Ghost, is refuted by 
the fact, that after the positive negation, comes 
the phrase "neither in this world, (age) neither 
40 



£32 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



in the world (age) to come." (See Letters No. 
III. and VI.) Clarke says : "Though I follow 
the common translation, I am satisfied the mean- 
ing of the words is, neither in this dispensation, 
(the Jewish) nor. in that which is to come, 
(the Christian.)" He also says: "'World to 
come 1 is a common phrase among Jewish writers 
for the times of the Messiah." Thus your nega- 
tion is limited. 

10. What you have said respecting my answers 
to your six questions, will not divert me from the 
main topic of this discussion. I cannot, however, 
refrain from making one remark : You say, " if 
I show that there is no proof of endless wo, it 
does not prove that there is no such wo." Now 
this, Sir, appears to be a very singular remark, 
and especially when we consider, that our inquiry 
is "whether the Bible teaches interminable suf- 
fering." What you have said in defence of a 
personal devil, and of Christ being his own fath- 
er, is entitled to about as much consideration as 
this. But if it were ever so forcible, I would not 
reply to it, because it is foreign from our discus- 
sion. After we shall have settled the subject of 
this discussion, I will cheerfully buckle on the 
armour with you, in examining one or both of the 
other topics. Till then, I shall say nothing res- 
pecting them, even though, in the overflowings of 
your charity, you accuse Universalists of infidel- 
ity, because they differ with you respecting this. 
What aid you can expect from such obser- 
vations, it is impossible to conceive. When will 
you learn to be candid ? 

11. If the reader can see any bearing or fores 
in your remarks respecting Christ giving all 



THEOLOGICAL DI8CU85IOIT. fiSS 



eternal life, or how that which God has given, 
which he gave in Christ before the world began, 
can be dependent on faith for its existence, he 
must be blest with a more penetrating' 
mind than I can boast of. I will therefore pass 
to consider what you have said respecting my 
proofs, drawn from the life of Christ's priesthood, 
and from the testimony of Paul in 1. Cor. xv. 

To bring this testimony fairly before the mind, 
let us consider first that he is teaching the resurrec- 
tion of all men. "As in Adam all die, even so in 
Christ shall all be made alive," (v. 22.) Taking 
it for granted (for this you admit,) the he was 
teaching the resurrection of all men, we ask, 

12. To what state does he say they will be 
raised . ? This he expresses, 1 . by three words, 
apthartos, athcinasia, and aptharsia, which you 
admit are never applied to anything impure. — ■ 
Hence, according to your own showing, in tho 
words used to express the unchangeable state, tha 
idea of corruption, of mortality, or impurity is ut- 
terly excluded, and of course misery. 2. At the 
resurrection, the song of victory, as I showed in 
Letter No. VI. is to be sung over death and 
hades and sin. Consequently, all must be freed 
from their dominion. This I also proved by Paul's 
allusion to Isai. xxv. 8 ; which, in direct contra- 
diction to Paul, you refer to the church on earth. 
Let me add, 3. That at the resurrection, Christ 
will deliver up the kingdom to God, and God will 
be all in all. The apostle says, he shall reign till 
he hath put all enemies under his feet, till hs 
hath subdued all ; and then the end will come, 
vhen he will give up his mediatorial reign. It 
will not answer to say, his enemies will be »ub- 
41 



354 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



clued, but not saved ; foi Christ carries on his 
warfare against sin, and has only gained the vic- 
tory, when his enemy becomes his friend. INot 
only so, God is to be all in all, and this cannot 
be, unless all are holy. Thus the life which 
Christ will give to all men, is strictly endless, 
(akatalutou.) What will you have more than 
the reconciliation of all to Gcd, God all in all, in 
a world of incorruptibility and immortality ? — 
What is here proved of one man, is proved of 
all, for you admit that the apostle was speaking 
of the resurrection of all men. Your highly clas- 
sical figure, drawn from the height and thumbs 
of man, can weigh nothing against such over— 
whelming testimony as this. To say that he 
was speaking of the church exclusively, is to say 
that only the church will be raised. But as the 
dead, or all who died in Adam, are to be raised, 
all who died in Adam will finally be as the an- 
gels of God in heaven — hoty and happy — they 
will die no more. The Bible abounds with this 
kind of testimony. In Rom. viiL 19 — 2:2, we 
read : " For the earnest expectation of the crea- 
ture waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of 
God. For the creature was made subject to va- 
nity, not willingty, but by reason cf him who 
hath subjected the same in hope : Because the 
creature itself also shall be delivered from the 
bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of 
the children of God. For we know that the 
whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain 
together until now." Here the word rendered 
creature and creation is the same (ktisis^ and 
consequently all, (that is the whole creation) who 
ttQ subject to vanity, are finally to be delivered 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. $55 



into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 
Universaiism therefore is true. 

In Eph. i. 9, 10, we read: "Having mad© 
known unto us the mystery of his will, according 
to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in 
himself ; That, in the dispensation cf the fulness 
of times, he might gather together in one all 
things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and 
which are on ear :.h, even in him." These words 
teach Universaiism, 1. Because God wills the 
salvation of all men, See 1 Tim. ii. 4. 2. Be- 
causa he does all things after the counsel of his 
own will and pleasure. 3. Because it is his 
purpose to save all men. He sent not his Son to 
condemn (John 3. 17,) but to save the world.— 
For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, 
(1 John iii. 8.) 4. The phrase "all things 1 ' in- 
disputably proves theso positions, for it signifies 
all men. Thus Peter (Acts iii. 21) speaks of the 
times of the restitution of "all things." So Paul, 
(1 Cor. xv. 28,) 'when "all things" shall be sub- 
dued, then shall the Son be subject to him that put 
'all things under him." He also says, (Heb. i. 2,) 
'whom he hath appointed heir of "all things." 1 
Christ then will restore all men. 

In 1 Tim. ii. 1 — 7. we read: (i l exhort, there- 
fore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, in- 
tercessions, and giving cf thanks, be made for all 
men ; for kings, and for all that are in authority ; 
that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all 
godliness and honesty : for this is good and ac- 
ceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who 
will have all men to be saved, and to come unto 
the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God* 



tS5 TREOLOSCXAL DlSCUSStOIf. 



and one mediator between God and men; the man 
Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, 
to be testified in due time. \V hereunto I am or- 
dained a preacher." Here we ask, what was 
Paul ordained to preach? The text gives the 
answer : That there is one Gcd who wills the 
salvation of all, and that there is one mediator 
who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified 
in due time. Suppose a Methodist were to state 
the doctrine he was ordained to preachy would he 
be likely to say nothing of endless wo; but on the 
other hand, speak of God's will to save all, and 
the mission of Christ to accomplish this will ? — 
Thus did an inspired apostle. We have only to in- 
quire then,whether God's will /will be accomplish- 
ed, and Christ succeed in the object of his mission? 

In Heb. ii. 10, we read: c For it became him, 
for whom are all things, and by whom are all 
things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to 
make- the captain of their salvation perfect thro* 
sufferings.' The word here rendered many, as 
"many sons," is pollous, and signifies, according 
to Parkhurst, the "whole bulk of mankind," and 
is equivalent to (pantas antkrcpous.) all men, in 
Rom.v. 12. See also verses 15, 19. All men then 
are to be brought to glory, through the ministry 
cf Christ. Hence Paul says, in the verses pro- 
ceeding, "Thou hast put all things in subjection 
under his feet. For in that he put all in subjec- 
tion under him, he left nothing that is not put 
under him. Now we see not, yet all things put 
under him, but we see Jesus, who was made a 
little lower than the angels, for the suffering of 
death, crowned with glory and honour; that he, 
by the grace of God, should taste death for every 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. SS7 

man." Here we see that " all things" are used 
as synonymous with "many sons," and that all 
are to be put under , or subjected to Christ. How 
then can any be finally lost ? 

In Heb. ii. 14 : "Forasmuch then as the chil- 
dren are partakers of flesh and blood, he also him- 
self likewise took part of the same ; that through 
death he might destroy him that hath the power 
of death, that is the devil." These words teach 
the destruction of death and the devil ; and con- 
sequently the end of all misery ; for as death is 
the last enemy, and as the devil hath power over 
death, there can be no misery after their destruc- 
tion. 

These, Sir, are only a few among the count- 
less passages which I have in reserve, and which 
I trust I shall have an opportunity of bringing 
forward before this discussion shall end. And if 
the word, the oath, and the promise of the Al- 
mighty are proof, I have no fears of showing be- 
yond the possibility of refutation, that Univer- 
salism is the truth of God. Thus far you have 
been labouring to prove that partialism is sustain- 
ed by these ; but with what success the reader 
must judge. 

Your argument from aidios in Jude 6, is un- 
worthy a reply, for the apostle asserts the limit- 
ation of the word. Observe — "Hath reserved in 
everlasting* chains under darkness, unto the judg- 
ment, &c." I should as soon produce the declara- 
tion of Jonah, that the earth and her bars were 
about him forever, to prove eternit}^, as Jude 6, to 
prove the eternity of misery . 

As you have again reiterated your charge of 
forgery upon Lexicons, I will here insert the 
42 



§33 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



dates of those to which I referred, though I must 
remark, that this is useless, and is not customary 
in such references. Besides, you must know 
that your charge is false, or else your boasted 
professions cf scholarship are groundless; for I can 
hardly conceive cf a pr.jfound Greek scholar be- 
ing ignorant of the standard works to which I 
have referred. Further, if you suspected what 
you say, why not examine the Lexicjns for your- 
self ? Sir, I blush to own, that I am discussing 
Theology with a mm, and he a minister of 
Christ, who can stoop to an act like this ! 

The dates are as follows : Jones, 2d edition, 
London, 1825; Hincks, Lond. 1S31; Schweig- 
hauser, 2d ed. Lond. 1830; Valpey, Lond. 18-28; 
Donnegan, 1st Ame. from 2d Lond. ed. Boston, 
1833; Schrevelius, N. Y. 1832; Grove, Boston, 
1833 ; Pickering, Bost. by Hilliaid Gray, & Co. 
Hedericus, Phil 1820. 

1 will only add, in calling for these dates, you 
have required of me what you have done only in 
a few instances. In all your quotations from 
Lexicographers on Gehenna, in Letter No. VIII. 
you have not given dates. But I suppose you 
think with Chalmers, that saints, those who 
have attained to the highest degree of purity and 
perfection, may do with impunity, what would 
be highly criminal in mankind in general. 

I am, &c. 

Otis A. Skinner. 

P. S. In your 8th letter, among other false 
things, you stated that Mr. Thomas Whittemcre, 
whom, in your sneering manner, you were pleas- 
ed to style one of the oracles of Universalism, 
denied the existence of good angels. Not having 



TH SO LOGIC AT. DISCUSSION. SSS 

all the works of this able and indefatigable min- 
istering- brother before me, and being" determined 
to state nothing but what 1 knew to be correct, I 
let the statement pass, intending to write Broth- 
er Whittemore, and ascertain whether he had 
ever advanced such a sentiment, and if he had 
not, to contradict your assertion. But while pre- 
paring a letter to him, I received the following, 
addressed to me, through the "Trumpet and 
Magazine," of which Mr. W. is the editor. Jus- 
tice to the falsely accused, requires its insertion: 
and let me here say, if you wish to continue this 
discussion, you must pay some little regard to 
truth in your statements respecting Universal ism 
and Universalis! s. Here follows the letter : — 
To Rev. Otis A. Skinner: 
Dear Brother — I perceive } T ou are now engag- 
ed in a controversy with Rev. Joseph M'Kee, on 
the subject of the final restoration of ail things to 
God. I have perused it with much pleasure, and 
I hope no^small profit; and I doubt not it is deeply 
interesting to the numerous readers of your very 
valuable papet, the "Pioneer." But will you do 
me the favour to ask of your reverend correspon- 
dent, how he knows I deny the existence of an- 
gels. He says in his 8th letter, "Mr. Whitte- 
more denies the existence of good and evil an- 
gels." How does he know this statement to be 
correct ? I have never denied the existence of a 
superior order of beings called angels, and never 
expect to. I read of th°m frequently in the scrip • 
tures. They sangr at the Saviour's birth, "Glory 
to God in the highest, peace on earth, and good 
will to men." I frequently mention them in my 
public services; and if I permitted the statement 
42* 



£40 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

of the Rev. gentlemen to go uncontradicted, I 
should subject myself to the charge of gross hy- 
pocrisy. Permit me to say, in closing this article, 
that there are many of your correspondent's state- 
ments as utterly destitute of truth, as the one 
above mentioned ; but as I find him in the care of 
one S3 well able to detect his fallacies, I shall 
contradict only what he has said in regard to 
rrryself. Yours respectfully, 

Thomas Whittemore. 



LETTER, No. XII. 

Bell Air, March 4, 1835. 
To Rev. 0. A. Skinner, 

Dear Sir — In reviewing your seventh letter 
with the deepest solicitude, I can find nothing 
against my twelve objections, worthy the name 
of argument or acute criticism. It contains a 
large proportion of extraneous matter, well inter- 
larded with bold assertions and self-confident 
declamation, which can have no weight with the 
considerate part of the community. You appear 
to think that positive assertions, if given in suf- 
ficient quantity, will very well supply the defi- 
ciency of sound argument. This is manifest by 
the liberal use you have made of the word as- 
sume, in replying to my objections. In looking 
over your letter I find the word "assumed," oc- 
curs once; "assumption," four times; assump- 
tions" five times; and "assuim," nine times, 
making in all, NINETEEN" times in the com- 
pass of one le ft ^ r ^ reflecting part of man- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



84! 



kind are not such stupid blockheads as to receive 
these reiterated assertions fjr logical reasoning, 
or scripture proof. I migfht, with as much pro- 
priety,, call every sentiment contained in your 
creed, mere assumption; but I choose to shew 
their fallacy and dangerous tendency by sound 
and incontrovertible arguments. You have given 
no satisfactory a. swer to any one of the twelve 
objections; much less to the whole; and, if any 
one of them cannot be fairly met and legitimately 
answered, Universalisjn is overthrown. The 
several metaphors of the wheat and the tlxaff, 
barren and fruitful tree, savoury and wisavcury 
sctlt, good and bad fish, &c. have not had any 
thing in the shape of an answer. My applica- 
tion of them, to a future state, you call assump- 
tion, and so pass them over. That the inspired 
writers intended to point out by them, the final 
state of mankind in the eternal world, is manifest 
from the following considerations: 1. The char- 
acter of the righteous and that of the wicked in 
this life, are contrasted with each other; the for- 
mer represented by the wheat, fruitful trees, &c. 
the latter by the chaff', unfruitful trees, &c. — 
2. The final states of these respective characters 
are also contrasted by the dispositions of these 
metaphors; the chaff 'tfnd the wheat, &c. are sep- 
arated from each other. 3. The final safety of 
the righteous, and the final and irrecoverable ruin 
of the wicked, are, in like manner, contrasted; 
the wheat is gathered into the garner; but the 
chaff is burned up. 4. To apply these meta- 
phors to temporal death, or the destruction of the 
body in this world, would not only confuse and 
destroy all force, beauty, propriety, and meaning 



141 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



of language, but palpably contradict both the let- 
ter and the spirit of the expressions used by the 
inspired writers. I will not, I cannot admit of 
any explanation that palpably contradicts the sa- 
cred text. A doctrine which stands in direct 
contradiction to the language of Holy Scripture, 
as Universalism unquestionably does, must neces- 
sarily be false. 

As you appear to lay great stress upon the opin- 
ions of "orthodox critics," I shall lay before you 
some of their sentiments concerning the meta- 
phors on which my twelve objections are found- 
ed. And as you have appealed to Clarke, to 
Clarke you shall go, and I will abide by his de- 
cision. 

I am greatly astonished that you gave the 
names of commentators by wholesale, as being in 
favor of the doctrine of Universalism, when it is 
well known to every well informed man, that 
every commentator who wrote on the Scriptures 
in the English language, is opposed to Univer- 
salism as an injurious heresy. 

The quotations which I shall make, are frcm 
Henry, Wesley and Clarke, 

Objection I. Wheat and chaff. Matt, iii: 
12. 

Mr. Henry sa}^s, "Hell is the unquenchable 
fire, which will burn up the chaff, which will 
certainly be the portion and punishment, and 
everlasting destruction of hypocrites and unbe- 
lievers." Com. in loc. 

Obj. 2. Fruitful and unfruitful tree. Matt, 
iii. 10. 

On these metaphors, Henry observes — 
^Fruitkas tr^ss will ba cut down by death and 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. S43 



cast into the fire of hell, a fire blown by the bel- 
lows of God's wrath, and fed with the wood of 
barren trees." Com. in loc. 

Obj. 3. The salt having lost its savour. Matt, 
v. 13. 

Oar Lord says of this salt, it is thenceforth 
good for nothing. If the finally impenitent or 
apostates, who are represented by the salt, should, 
at any future time, enjoy eternal life in heaven, 
these words of our blessed Savior must not only 
be void of meaning, bat absolutely false. 

Obj. 4. The last state of the man is worse than 
the first. Matt. xii. 43—44. 

On these words, Mr. Wesley remarks, "They 
(the seven spirits) enter in and dwell— Forever, 
in him who is forsaken of God. So shall it be 
to this winked generation — Yea, and to all apos- 
tates in all ages." Notes in loc. 

Obj- 5. The good and bad fish. Matt. xiii. 
47. 

On this text you have given a distorted view 
of Clarke's comment, for, in his exposition, X 
find the fallowing comment: "By picking out the 
good and throwing away the bad, ver. 48, is 
meant that separation which God shall make be- 
tween false and true professors, casting the for- 
mer into hell, and bringing the latter to heaven." 
Notes in loc. 

Obj. 6, The wheat and the tares. Matt, xiii. 
24—30. 

On these words Mr. Henry says, ^Hell is the 
furnace of fire, kindled by the wrath of God, and 
kept burning by the bundles of tares cast into it, 
who will be ever in the consuming, but never 
consumed." Com. in he. 



544 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



Clarke says, "These words may refer, 1 . To 
the creation of the world. 2. To the Jewish 
state and people. 3. To the state in which the 
world shall be found when he (Christ) comes to 
judge it. The righteous and the wicked shall be 
permitted to grow together, till God comes to 
make a full and final separation." JYotes in loc. 

Obj. 7 . The five foolish virgins shut out. Matt, 
xxv. 1—12. 

On these words Henry observes, "The state of 
saints and sinners will then be unalterably fixed, 
and those that are shut out then, will be shut out 
forever." Com. in Joe. 

Clarke says, 66 Then shall the kingdom of hea- 
ven. The state of Jews and professing christians, 
or the state of the visible church at the time of the 
destruction of Jerusalem, and in the day of judg- 
ment ; for the parable appears to relate to both 
those periods. And particularly to the time in 
which Christ shall come to judge the world, it 
will appear what kind of reception his gospel has 
met with." Again, "The door teas shut. Sinners 
on a death bed too often meet with those deceitful 
merchants, who promise them salvation for a 
price which is of no value in the sight of God. 
Come unto me, says Jesus, and buy — there is no 
salvation but through his blood, no hope for the 
sinner but that which is founded upon his sacri- 
fice and death. TJie doer was shut- — dreadful and 
fatal words ! No hope remains. Nothing but 
death can shut this door — but death may surprise 
us in our sins, and then death is our only portion." 
JYotes in loc. 

Obj. S. The parable of the talents. Matt, xxy, 
1 4 — SO. 



THEOLOGICAL. DISCUSSION. 



£45 



On the punishment of the unprofitable servant 
mentioned in the parable, Dr. Clarke remarks : 
"Ke is punished with an everlasting 1 separation 
from God and the glory of his power. Cast fcrih 
the unprofitable servant, ver. 30. Let him have 
nothing but darkness, who refused to walk in the 
light : let him have nothing but misery, weeping 
and gnashing of teeth, who has refused the hap- 
piness which God provided for him. 

Reader j if the careless virgin and the unprofit- 
able servant against whom no flagrant iniquity is 
charged, be punished with an outer darkness, 
with a hell of Jive; of what sorer punishment 
must he be judged worthy, who is a murderer, 
* * * a blasphemer, a thief, a liar, or in any 
respect an open violator of the laws of God ? The 
careless virgins and the unprofitable servant were 
saints in comparison of millions, who are, not- 
withstanding, dreaming of an endless heaven, 
when fitted only for an endless hell !" JYoies in 
he. 

Obj. 9. Ttie parable of the feast. Luke xiv. 15 

On this parable Clarke says but little, and re- 
fers his readers to Matt. xxii. 1 — 14, where it is 
largely explained, in which explanation I find 
the following words : — "That if this marriage 
do not take place here, an eternal separation from 
God, and from the glory of his power shall be the 
fearful consequence." JYctes in Joe. 

Obj. 10. The rich man and Lazarus. Luke 
xvi. 19—31. 

On this parable Wesley remarks, "But Abra- 
ham said, Son — according to the flesh. Is it not 
worthy of observation that Abraham T/ill not r&- 



546 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



vile even a damned soul ? Shall living men re- 
vile one another ? Thou in thy life time reeeiv- 
edst thy good tilings : Thou didst choose and ac- 
cept of worldly things as thy good, thy happi- 
ness. And can any one be at a loss to know why 
he was in torments? This damnable idolatry, 
had there been nothing more, was enough to sink 
him to the netherm: st hell." Notes in loc. 

Clarke says, "This account of the rich man 
and Lazarus is either a parable or a real history. 
If it be a parable, it is what may he; if it be a 
real history, it is that which has been. Either, a 
man may live as is here described and go to per- 
dition when he dies : or, some have lived in this 
way, and are now suffering the torments of an 
eternal fire. The account is equally instructive, 
in which soever of these lights it is viewed. 1 ' — 
Again, "The torments which a soul endures in 
the hell of firs, will form through all eternity a 
continual present course of indescribable woe. Ac- 
tual torment in the flames of the bottomless pit, 
forms a fourth circumstance in the punishment 
of the lost." JYotes in he. 

Ohj. 11. The vine and its branches . John xv. 
5, 6. 

Henry says, on these words, ^They will be 
burned f, rover in a fire, which not only cannot 
be quenched, but which will never spend itself." 
Com. in he. 

In explanation of this metaphor, Clarke says, 
"Hz is cist forth: Observe, that person who 
abides not in Christ, in a believing, loving, obe- 
dient spirit, is 1 . Cut off' from Jesus, having no 
longtr any regard or title to him, or to his salva- 
tion. 2. He is withered — deprived of all the in- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. £47 



fluences of God's grace and spirit ; loses all his 
heavenly unction ; becomes indifferent, cold., and 
dead to every holy and spiritual word and work. 
3. He is gather en — becomes (through the judg- 
ment of God) again united with backsliders like 
himself, and other workers of inquity ; and being 
abandoned to his own heart and Satan ; he is 4. 
Cast into the jive — separated frcin God's people, 
from God himself, and from the glory of his pow- 
er. And 5. He is burned — is eternally tormented 
with the devil and his angels, and with all those 
who have lived and died in their iniquity. Rea- 
der! pray God that this ma}' never be thy por- 
tion." jYcies in Ice. 

~ Obj. 12. The trees twice dead. Jude 12. 

On this passage Mr*. iVesley writes, " Ticice 
dead — in sin, first by nature, and afterward by 
apostacv. plucked up by the rccis: And so inca- 
pable of ever reviving." Notes in he. 

Nov/ sir, what think you of the testimony of 
"orthcdw3: critics" respecting the metaphors in 
debate? Clarke, to whose authority you have 
appealed, has decided against Universalism in 
favour of the doctrine of endless misery. What 
now? You have appealed to him against my 
views ; I am satisfied to abide by his decision 
throughout, so away goes the novel doctrine of 
Universalism to the fcjUT winds. 

The four texts which you cite, in the last sec- 
tion of your letter, in proof of the doctrine of 
Universalism are entirely perverted and misap- 
plied to support an erroneous system. 

John xii. 32. "And I, if I be lifted up from 
the earth, will draw all men unto me." I can 
see no proof in these words that the punishment 



£43 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

of the wicked is not eternal. Nor do I think any 
man living can, unless blinded by a false creed, 
or basely interested in the establishment of a 
false doctrine. All that our Saviour could mean, 
by the words in question was, that if he should 
be put to death on the cross, he would, by the 
influence of his Holy Spirit on the human heart, 
enlighten both Jews and Gentiles, and thereby 
put the means of salvation within their reach, 
that those who should obey his hoi)' gospel should 
be everlastingly saved. 

Rom. v. £0. '-For as by one man's disobedi- 
ence many were made sinners, so by the obedi- 
ence of one shall many be made righteous." — 
These words relate to the fall of mankind in 
Adam, and their restoration by Jesus Christ. — 
That all men fell in Adam is admitted ; that pro- 
vision is made for the restoration of all in Christ 
is also admitted, which is all that is intended in 
this text. It is not said that all mankind shall 
be made righteous. But supposing it was, and 
that in the most positive manner, it would not 
prove the final salvation of all men, according to 
your own account: for, you said in your 6th letter 
that the believer of to-day may be the infidel of 
to-morrow. So that although all had eternal life, 
or were made righteous in this life, they may not 
be eternally saved. 

1 John iv. 14. cc And we have seen and do tes- 
tify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savi- 
our of the world." These words prove that God 
has, of his unbounded mercy, sent his son into the 
world to purchase, by his obedience and death; 
the salvation of the world ; and, although it is 
prepared in Christ, its application to the human 



THEOLOGICAL I>lSCUSSL01f 



U9 



heart is contingent, depending on the condition 
of faith and the co-operation of the will of the 
creature. Though Christ died for all, it by no 
means follows that all will be saved eternally, 
for the disobedient and faithless shall be cast into 
the lake of fire; or in other words, be punished 
with endless misery. 

Eph. i. 9, 10. "Having made known unto us 
the mystery of his will according to his good plea- 
sure, which he hath purposed in himself, that in 
the dispensation of the fulness of times, he might 
gather together in one, all things in Christ, both 
which are in heaven and which are in earth, 
even in him." It is a universally admitted fact, 
both in church and state, that, that which proves 
too much proves nothing at all. And by this very 
rule the text in question can prove nothing in fa- 
vour of U niversalism . It is said that all things 
in heaven and earth shall be collected in one in 
Christ. Does this mean all men, angels, devils, 
beasts, birds, fishes, insects and reptiles in hea- 
ven and earth ? Or does it mean only a part of 
all things ? A part doubtless. But where are 
its limits? Dees it include both men and devils? 
You deny the salvation of devils. I deny the 
salvation of al] men. This text can be of no use 
to your cause t;il you prove that all things mean 
all mankind, and this you cannot do till the 
last trumpet shall sound. The true meaning ot 
the text is this : God has determined to collect 
in one, in Christ, at the last day, all the parts of 
the general church, including angels and all the 
redeemed among Jews and Gentiles, in all the 
nations of the earth. From these remarks, it ap- 
pears plainlv, that if Universalism has got noth- 
43 * 



S50 



THEOLOGICAL D1SCUBS10K 



ing but these four texts to support it, down it 
must fail to rise no more forever. 

I shail now proceed to the consideration of 
some particulars in your eighth letter. 

Your remark concerning Whitfield is too scur- 
rilous to have any place in a religious discussion, 
or to merit any reply from me ; therefore, I shall 
take no notice of it. 

You say I was mistaken when I said Origen 
was the first Universalist. This is mere than you 
have proved or can prove. I say again that Ori- 
gen was the first Universalist, and I defy you to 
show that a single vestige of it existed before his 
day. Consequently, Universalism is a false doc- 
trine, or Christ and his Apostles and all others 
who lived before Origen were ignorant of the 
true dectrine of the gospel. Take which side 
you please. But I shall adduce proofs of my as- 
sertions. In a note in the Encyclopedia, (Phil. 
Edit. vol. xni. page 492) it is affirmed that — 
"Origen is the first Christian, (whose notions on 
this subject have come down to us) who believed 
in the restoration of all things." The British 
Encyclopaedia testifies the same fact. (Art. Ori- 
gen.) The same sentiment concerning him is 
maintained by Dr. Maclaine, (See Mesh elm's- 
Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. page 168 : Bait. 
1832,) where his errors are summed up as follow: 
"The tenets of Origen," says the Dr. "which 
gave the greatest offence, were the following : 1 
That, in the Trinity, the Father is greater than 
the Son, and the Son, than the Holy Ghost. 2. 
The p*:e-existence of souls, which Origen con- 
sidered as seat into mortal bodies for the punish- 
ment of sins committed in a former state of being-. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



251 



3. That the soul of Christ was united with the 
word before the incarnation. 4. That the sun, 
moon and stars, &c. were animated and endowed 
with rational souls. 5. That after the resurrec- 
tion all bodies will be of a rojund figure. 6. That 
the torments of the damned will have an end; and 
that, as Christ had been crucified in this world 
to save mankind, he is to be crucified in the next 
to save the? devils." 

These sentiments, together with the circum- 
stance of his excommunication, sufficiently war- 
rant me in calling him a heretic ; and also show 
evidently that he was the first Universalist.- 
Mosheim says, "The greatest part of the Chris- 
tian bishops approved the proceedings of the Al- 
exandrian council" which excommunicated him 
from the Christian church. 

You say the Basilidians, Carpocratians, and 
Valentinians held the sentiments of the Univer- 
sslists before Origen. This I absolutely deny, 
and challenge you to produce proof. Mosheim re- 
presents Basilides, the founder of the Basilidians, 
as an extravagant fanatic, holding among other 
ridiculous absurdities, the foolish notion that 
there are 365 heavens, a heaven for each day in 
the year. Honourable authority indeed, for the 
doctrine of Universalism ! The same historian 
observes concerning Carpocrates, founder of the 
Carpocratians, that, whatever may be said of Ba- 
silides, it is certain that he was far surpassed in 
impiety by Carpocrates, who was also of Alex- 
andria, and who carried the Gnostic blasphemies 
to a more enormous degree of extravagance than 
they had ever been brought to by that sect." 
44 



£52 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 

(Ecclesiastical History, vol. t. page 73. Bali, 
1832.) The above cited author represents Val- 
entine, founder of the sect which bears his name, 
as one of the wildest fanatics that ever embraced 
the Gnostic heresy ; while his followers indulged 
in the most foolish and fanciful speculations, of 
which the human imagination is capable concern- 
ing the origin of the worlds of created beings, and 
of our blessed Saviour. (Ibid.) So much for the 
honourable names tl\at stand at the head of your 
system according to your own showing ! I call 
upon you to prove that these fanatics held the 
sentiments of Uni versalism or else take back what 
you have said on the subject. 

You say Universalism is advocated in the Si- 
byline Oracles, a work published about the year 
150 to convert heathens to the gospel. Let us 
see what these Oracles are. Buck, in his Theo. 
Diet. says, "they are prophecies delivered., it is 
said; by certain women of antiquity, showing the 
fates and revolutions of kingdoms. We have a 
collection of them in eight books. Dr. Jorton ob- 
serves,, that they were composed at different times 
by different persons , first by Pagans, and then, 
perhaps j by Jews, and certainly by Christians. 
They abounded with phrases, words, facts, and 
passages j taken from the LXX., and the New 
Testament. They are, says the Dr. a miserable 
specimen of astonishing impudence and miserable 
poetry , and seem to have been, from first to last, 
and without any one exception, mere impostures. ' 

Such is the account we have of the Sibyline 
Oracles, and after all, no proof can be produced, 
either from them or from any other source, that 
any such doctrine as Universalism existed, in any 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



253 



shape, before the days of Origen. If you cannot 
trace your doctrine to a higher and more respect- 
able s ource it would be much better to give it up 
as the spurious offspring of the most contempta- 
ble parents, and take the unsophisticated word of 
God, in its common sense meaning, for your guide 
in search of religious truth. 

You insinuate that I am ignorant of your order. 
Your order, if such it may be called, is such a 
heterogeneous mass, such a hodgepodge,such a ba- 
bel of confusion, that no man in your own com- 
munion can fully understand it. Every man ap- 
pears to have a system of his own, witness the 
great diversity of sentiment that exists among 
the oracles of Universalism. This is manifest by 
the violence with which you treated the senti- 
ments of Dr. Chauncy, in the commencment of 
this controversy. Nor does it appear that any 
man among you holds the same sentiments one 
month together ; a remarkable instance of this, 
may be seen in Abner Kneeland. Never did the 
moon pass through a greater number of changes 
than Universalism has assumed during the 65 
years which have elapsed since the first heresi- 
arch landed in this country. 

Yours in the bonds of the gospel. 

Joseph M'Kee. 
P. S. Since writing the above, No. xviii. of 
the "Pioneer" fell into my hands, in which I 
find a note from Mr. Whittemore, wherein he 
denies my statement of his creed respecting good 
and evil angels, and asks how I know he holds 
such sentiments. He shall have my authority 
jn the most unreserved manner. It is the follow- 



254 



THEOLOSCIAL DISCUSSION- 



ing : About three years ago, his work on the pa 
rabies fell into my hands; and, although I read it 
with a sort of indescribable feelings composed 
partly of solicitude, surprise and disgust, I am not 
able to give his own words concerning the angels, 
nor can I refer to the particular page, not having 
seen the book since. Sometime since, the "Chris- 
tian Spectator," a New Haven work fell in my 
way. This publication, contains among other 
matters, (vol. v. JVo. u.page 8-2.) the following 
words, on the authority of which, rather than 
memory, I made the statement : u All that the 
bible seems to tell us of angels, fallen and rebel- 
lious, and of angels, holy ministering spirits, 
these men (the Universalists) explain away." — 
And for proof, the reader is referred to "Whitte- 
more on the Parables, Boston, 1832, pp. 50, 51, 
47, 259." Here Sir, is my authority for saying 
what I did. Please tell us what the other false 
things are, that you and your correspondent al- 
lude to, that I may have the opportunity of cor- 
recting them, or proving that they are correct. 
If you do not produce them, the charge of false- 
hood will naturally fall upon }^our own head. I am 
in search of truth, and my object is to search out 
falsehood, and then discard it. 

Yours, See. Joseph M'Kee. 



LETTER No. XII. 

Baltimore, March. 10, 1835. 
To Rev. Joseph McKee: 
Dear Sir. — Although in this discussion, I have 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



255 



frequently held up to the reader's gaze and de- 
nounced in strong- language, your oft repeated 
charges of "miserable subterfuges/' "straws at 
which a drowning man grasps/' "criticisms of 
which every scholar should be ashamed/' "forge- 
ries/' and attempts to "deceive the unlearned/' 
1 am not conscious of having said a syllable in 
reply to your arguments, that can be construed by 
the most fastidious into a violation of the rules of 
controversial courtesy. It is true, 1 have exposed, 
and have endeavoured to set in their true light, 
your outrageously unfair quotations from Lexi- 
cons and Maclaine's note in Mosheim; but the 
peculiar enormity of these cases, and the interests 
of truths required this at my hands. I had hoped 
from the somewhat manly tone of your tenth 
letter, that you had exhausted your spirit of de- 
nunciation., and seen the folly of such a course. 
It seems however, that I was mistaken, and that 
you are determined, while you wield the pen 
against Universalism, to show, by every form of 
denunciation, and every variety of abuse, the 
contempt with which you regard the doctrine. 
You are welcome, sir, to all the glory and aid of 
such a measure 5 and having found that neither 
"soft words" nor "sharp rebukes" will check this 
predominant spirit of your nature, I would now 
rather incur the charge of making my letters too 
tame, than waste time in even repeating the 
charges with which yours abound. 

You commence your present letter by saying, 
that my 7th, in reply to your 'twelve objections/ 
"contains a large portion of extraneous matter, 
interlarded with bold assertions and self-confi- 
45 



256 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION- 

dent declamation;" and by affirming, that I "have 
given no satisfactory answer to any one of your 
twelve objections." Now sir, I am unable to see 
any extraneous matter in that letter — you alluded 
to twelve texts of scripture ; and those it was 
necessary for me to explain, which in most cases 
is done in the very language of some orthodox 
commentator. This you call "extraneous matter." 
As it respects my "bold assertions," I will only 
say, I did assert unequivocally, that you assumed 
your application of almost every text in your 7th 
letter, and if the words assume, assumed and as- 
sumption are used as frequently as you say, the 
fault is chargeable upon yourself. If you did not 
assume your application of those texs, why not 
prove that my "bold assertions are false?" Why 
sir, look at your mode of treating your proof texts. 
On the parable of the wheat and chaff you say : 
1. "The wheat and chaff are metaphors intended 
to point out the condition of the righteous and the 
wicked in this world. 2. The disposition which 
was made of them, that is the gathering of the 
wheat &c. shows the disposition w T hich shall be 
made of the righteous and the wicked at the day 
of judgment." Now if this be not assumption, 
then I know not what is. You have not given 
a single argument, to show that you are correct. 
You have relied entirely on the education and 
prejudice of your readers. But is this the 
way to learn the truth ? According to this, I am 
combatting popular prejudice, and not argument. 
Clarke says, the wheat and chaff represent the 
Christians and the Jews in the days of the apos- 
tles, the gathering of the wheat and burning the 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 257 



chaff, the separation between the Christians and 
the Jews, at the destruction of Jerusalem. 

In your 10th letter, you have pursued precisely 
the same course. On Matt. xxv. 30, you say., 
"this text shows, what will be done with the 
wicked at the time time their characters shall be 
investigated by the Supreme Judge, and as this 
is represented to us as the final state of men, it is 
irreconcilable with Universalism." Now do you 
not here assume your application of this text? Do 
you give a single argument to show that you are 
correct ? And yet, you complain of me, because 
I denounce these things as assumptions ! Sir, if 
the word assumption sounds so unpleasanrly in 
your ears, give me argument, and I will use it no 
more. 

But what have you done in your present let- 
ter, towards showing by "sound and incontrover- 
tible arguments," that your twelve texts in let- 
ter No. VII. were correctly applied? Why, you 
have lain down four propositions, which you have 
backed up by assertions, and assertions only ! — 
Proof you have not given ; and further, proof, I 
believe, you cannot give. If you can, why all 
this taking shelter behind the strong ramparts of 
popular prejudice ? Why this continual going 
round and round the subject ? Here, as in 
your 7th letter, you assume, that the wheat and 
chaff represent the righteous and wicked, their 
separation the judgment of the 'world, and the 
burning of the chaff the endless wo of the wicked. 
Now why not prove this ? Why not give one 
argument to sustain your opinion ? You have 
indeed said "to refer this to temporal death, is to 
destroy all beauty and force in the passage." But 
45* 



258 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



I cannot see this : and even if it did, it does not 
affect the explanation given in my 7th letter. 
There it is referred to the judgment, which came 
upon the Jews at the destruction of their city, and 
at the abolishment of their dispensation. You 
may say that this ' palpably contradicts 1 the sac- 
red text; but your word is no proof. Besides, I 
consider Clarke much better authority than Mr. 
M'Kee, and what you call a palpable contradic- 
tion of the text, Clarke calls its true meaning. 

You say > C I tf appear to lay great stress on the 
opinions of orthodox critics on your twelve texts.' 
You are right sir: I do, and for the very best of 
reasons. These men believed in the eternity of 
misery — their education taught them to believe 
this — all their prepossessions and prejudices were 
in favour of this sentiment. And yet, when they 
examined the texts on which you rely to prove 
the doctrine, they differ from you entirely — and 
thus, they become witnesses in our favour — and 
the best of witnesses too. Hence we can show 
the truth of Universalism, f our enemies them- 
selves being judges.' You express great surprise 
that I have given commentators by the whole- 
sale, as being in favour of Universalism, when 
they all believed in endless misery. Now, sir, I 
have not done this. I have only said, that they 
explained most of the texts usually brought to 
prove endless misery, as Universalists do. Con- 
sequently you have misrepresented me. 

It is unnecessary for me to explain again the 
' twelve texts' of your 7th letter; for you have not 
attempted a refutation of what I have said on 
them. You have simply quoted on each, a few 
sentences from Wesley, or Henry or Clarke: 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



259 



sentences that contain merely the opinion and as- 
sertion of these men. Whereas in my 7th letter, 
you will find the arguments, as well as the opin- 
ions of orthodox commentators. Besides, sup- 
pose in my application of scripture, I should 
merely give the opinion of our writers — would 
not every discerning 1 reader say I must be hard 
pushed on the field of debate ? I might quote 
Murray, Winchester, Ballou, Balfour, Rayner, 
Streeter and Whittemore, and show what they 
have said : but though I esteem the works of 
these men highly, and consider them unanswera, 
ble, they are not the kind of authority which 1 
want in this discussion. They are, however, as 
good for me, as your writers are for you. I shall 
therefore pay no attention to your quotations from 
Henry and Wesley. 

As I made several extracts from Clarke, and as 
you have agreed to ^abide by his decision,' I will 
observe, that Clarke explains your first, second, 
third and fourth objections in accordance with 
Universalism. Now sir, have you the candour 
to abide by his decision? If so, acknowledge your 
error in regard to theso texts. The fifth, sixth, 
and seventh texts of your letter, Clarke thinks 
have a double meaning, and refer ^primarily 
to the destruction of Jerusalem.' I will not stop 
to show the extreme absurdity of his notion, con- 
cerning the double meaning of scripture, but I 
will merely inquire, whether you will abide his 
decision on these? 

When you will answer this in the afrirmative, 
I am prepared to discuss the notion of the double 
meaning of these texts! But this you cannot do, 




260 THEOLOGICAL, DISCUSSION" • 

for you have feigned to believe it absurd, to refer 
such texts, to temporal calamities. 

I deny the charge of distorting the views cf 
Clarke on your fifth objection — I have given the 
very language where he speaks cf its primary 
meaning. 

Your ninth,, tenths eleventh and twelfth objec- 
tions are fully answered in my 7th letter-, and 
when you will point out the incorrectness of these 
answers, 1 will consider what you have said. — 
But to assume your application in the first place,, 
and then to reply to my explanations by quota- 
tions from your own commentators, is more than 
I can permit. And unless you refute what has 
been said on these texts, I shall take for granted 
that you are unable to do it. 

You say, I appealed to Clarke. I did, and in 
every instance in which I did, he sustained my 
views. I appealed also to Whitby 9 Grotius 7 
Macknight, Hammond, Pearce, Lightfoot, and 
Cappe, and they also sustained my views. But 
I did not say that Clarke agrees with Universal- 
ists on all of your twelve texts, and when you 
intimate that I did, you intimate what every un- 
biassed reader knows is false. As far then as I 
appealed to Clarke, he justifies my explanations, 
and unless you falsify ) T ourw T ord, you will admit 
this. It must be mortifying for you to know that 
all your proof texts are explained by orthodox 
critics, as we explain them. But so it is, and it 
shows the great weakness of your cause. 

From the foregoing remarks,, it will be seen, 
that you have attempted no reply to that part of 
my 7 th letter, in which I examine your twelve 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 2(31 

texts. Every explanation is passed in silence. 
My arguments therefore remain in their full 
force. 

I will now consider what you have said, in 
.answer to the four texts, with which I concluded 
that letter. John, xii. 32. 'And if I be lifted up 
from the earthy will draw all men unto me.' 
Without producing- a single argument against 
my application of this, you assert, ff that these 
words are no proof against the eternity of mise- 
ry , and that no man, unless blinded by a false 
creed, and basely interested in the establishment 
of a false doctrine, could think they did]' O 
candor and charity! whither have ye fled? 

You also assert that they only teach, that the 
means of salvation are put into the hands of 
Jews and Gentiles, but if to f put the means of 
salvation in the hands of Jews and Gentiles,' is 
drawing all men to Christ, then it is requisite, 
that we should have a new dictionary, for none 
but a ^profound scholar' could ever discover this. 
^Clarke saj^s, that there is probably an allusion 
in this text, to a fable among the ancients. Jupi- 
ter, they said 'had a chain of gold, which he 
could at any time, let down from heaven, and by 
it, draw the earth and all its inhabitants to him- 
self. By this chain, the poets pointed out the 
union between heaven and earth; or in other 
words, the government of the universe by the 
extensive chain of causes and effects. It was 
termed golden to point out, not only the benefi- 
cence of the Divine Providence; but also that in- 
finite philanthrophy of God, by which he influ- 
ences and attracts all mankind to himself.' Love 
then, is the golden chain by which Jesus will 



262 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

draw all men to himself. And sir,, this passage 
would satisfy me that Universalism is true, did 
not the phrase all men occur in it,, for the figure 
used , and the means described, prove it beyond 
all dispute. Jesus will display his goodness, 
and draw a world to his own bosom, by the cords 
of love. Methodists have often declared, that 
there is not an unconditional promise in the Bi- 
ble. There was originally a condition in the 
text before us — that condition has been fulfilled, 
Jesus was lifted up. Now, therefore, the prom- 
ise is unconditional. I will draw all men unto 
me. 

Promises of this nature may be found on al- 
most every page of the Bible. Thus we read: 
tf In thee shall all the families of the earth be 
blessed. (Gen. xii. 3, xxviii. 14, xxii. 18.) All 
the ends of the world shall remember, and turn 
unto the Lord, and all the kindreds of the na- 
tions shall worship before him. (Psal. xxii. 27.) 
He will swallow up death in victory, and he will 
wipe away tears from all faces. (Isai. xxv. 8.) 
Every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall 
swear, not that they should be justly condemned, 
but that in the Lord they have righteousness 
and strength. (Isai. xlv. 23, 24.) 

2. Rom. v. 20. 'For as by the disobedience of 
one, many were made sinners, so by the obedi- 
ence of one many shall be made righteous.' 
These words you assert, (and this is all, for you 
give no proof) simply teach, that provision is 
made for all men. But does not the text say, 
shall be made righteous? And therefore, does it 
not show, what Christ will actually accomplish, 
rather than what he is able, or has the means of 



THE LOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



263 



accomplishing? Observe., it does not say, as by 
the disobedience of one, many were made sin- 
ners, so by the obedience of one, provision is 
made for the righteousness of many; but it says, 
that many shall he made righteous. As though 
sensible that something more than a provision of 
salvation is taught, in these words, in order 
to evade their force, you declare, ( it is not said 
that all mankind shall be made righteous.' Now 
sir, if the word many, does not mean all mankind 
in the last clause of the text, it cannot in the first. 
Consequently, according to your explanation, 
all mankind did not die in Adam. 

Not only so, provision cannot be made, 
as you admit for all, for many is the word used 
to express the number, for whom, what you call 
the f provision,' was made. Besides, the word 
here rendered many, according to Parkhurst, 
means the whole bulk of mankind, and is equiv- 
alent to ( c pantas anthropous) all men, in verses 
12, 18. Therefore, your declaration, that there 
is nothing said in the text, of all mankind being 
made righteous, is far from the truth, as the east 
is from the west. 

Your attempt to rescue this text from my 
hands, on the authority of my statement, that the 
believer of to-day, may be the infidel of to-mor- 
row, is a failure for three reasons: 

1. It applies language, which I used with re- 
spect to men in this world, where all is imper- 
fection, to their final state, where they will be 
freed from all sin and imperfection. And surely, 
nothing can be more unfair. 

2. You deny that statement; and therefore ac- 



284 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

cording to your reasoning-, my remarks on Rom. 
v. 19; are sound. 

3. Paul in the 5th of Rom. shows, that grace 
will reign beyond sin, and abound more than sin. 
It reigns beyond, because it, destroys sin, and 
makes all those righteous, whom sin had pollu- 
ted. It abounds more, because it not only de- 
stroys sin, but makes all men endlessly happy. 
Thus he says, 'where sin abounded, grace did 
much more abound, that as sin had reigned unto 
death, even so might grace reign through right- 
eousness unto eternal life,' that is, reign beyond 
death, and over all men. Now to talk about 
some becoming wicked, when 'death is conquer- 
ed, hell disappointed, the devil confounded, and 
sin totally destroyed,' is absurd in the highest 
degree. 

3. 1 John iv. 14. 'And we have seen and do 
testify, that the Father sent the Son, to be the 
Saviour of the world.' What have you offered 
to prove that this, does not teach Universalism? 
Not an argument! You have not attempted an 
argument! You have asserted, it is true, that it 
simply teaches that means are prepared for the 
salvation of all; but as this directly contradicts 
the text, it will only go for an assertion. 

1. These words teach the purpose of God to 
save all men. Observe, 'the Father, sent the 
Son to be the Saviour of the world.' Here the 
great purpose of God is clearly expressed. Now 
we have only to ask, whether God will accom- 
plish this purpose? Hear his own answer. As 
I have purposed, so shall it stand; (Isai. xiv. 24' 
the Lord hath purposed it, who shall disannul it? 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIOK. 



265 



(27) I have purposed it, and I will also do it, 
(Isai. 48, 11.) Methodists, I know pretend, that 
God purposed the salvation of mankind on cer- 
tain conditions, which at the time, he knew, all 
would not comply with. Now while I admit, 
that his purposes are so far conditional, that none 
can be saved, without repentance, I deny that 
God could purpose what he knew would not be 
done, because this would be acting against 
knowledge. Man in all his folly, never at- 
tempts to do, what he knows he shall not. Neith- 
er does he attempt to do a thing in a way, he 
knows he cannot. And if God purposed to save 
Gnly those who comply with certain conditions, 
and knew at the time, that all would not com- 
ply, he never purposed to save all. And there- 
fore the text is false, if Methodism is true. 

2. These words teach that Christ is the Sa- 
viour of the world. But how can he be its Sa- 
viour, unless he saves it? You will perhaps say 
he is a Saviour, because he offers to save. But 
is offering to save, saving? Suppose I see a man 
perishing with hunger, and offer to supply him 
with food, but do not, and the man dies, can I be 
called his Saviour? Assuredly not. But if we 
admit that offering to save is saving, even this 
does not entitle Christ to the appellation of a 
universal Saviour; for not one fourth part of the 
world has had the offers of salvation. This we 
know, therefore we know that Methodism is 
false. Because admitting the common explana- 
tion of this subject, Christ is not entitled to the 
appellation of the Saviour of the world. 

The scriptures bear us out in this reasoning. 
They ascribe complete success to the Saviour. 



266 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



They declare that Christ shall have the heathen 
for an inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the 
earth for a possession (Psal ii. 8.) that the 
pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand 
(Isai. liii. 10) and that having subdued all he will 
deliver up the kingdom to God. 1 Cor. xv. L 24. 

4. Eph. 1 — 9 — 10. Having made known into 
us the mystery of his wi\\, &c. You seek to 
evade the force of my argument, drawn from 
this text, by saying, that the application I give 
it, proves too much, and therefore proves nothing 
at all. You then ask, 'if all things means all 
men, angels, devils, beasts, birds, fishes, insects, 
and reptiles in heaven and in earth.' Now sir, 
when we consider that Christ came to save 
men, that the gave his life a ransom for all men, 
that the Bible is a revelation to men, concerning 
the will, purpose and pleasure of God respect- 
ing them, and that nothing is said within its 
sacred pages, concerning the salvation of beasts, 
&c. or about Christ dying for any but human in- 
telligences, your question appears lame beyond 
expression. I admit, that the phrase f all things' 
is sometimes used to express what God has cre- 
ated, and what he sees; and that then it includes 
all, and more than you have said; but when it is 
used in relation to salvation, it can only refer to 
those, who are its subjects, and for whom Christ 
died. 

'That he might gather together in one all 
things, both which are in heaven, and on earth.' 
Now, if you limit 'all things,' as it respects 
things on earth, which Christ came to save, you 
must limit it, as respects things in heaven. And 
therefore you must say, that there will be hu- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 267 



man intetfigencies in heaven, that will not be in 
Christ. But the text does not say some of all 
things, but all things in heaven and on earth. 

Profess or Stuart, of Andover College, Mass. 
says: 'Things in heaven, earth, and under the 
earth, is a common periphrasis of the Hebrew 
and New Testament writers, fur the universe.' 
See his letters to Dr. Channing on Unitarian- 
ism. The correctness of this remark is un- 
questionable, and therefore, we can say, with 
the Revelator, that 6 every creature which is in 
heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, 
and such as are in the sea, and all that are in 
them, shall sing, blessing and honor, glory and 
power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, 
and to the lamb forever and ever.' There are 
but two answers, which I have ever heard given 
to this text. The first is, that it proves too 
much, and the second that every creature 
in heaven, &c. saw John, singing this song, and 
not that John saw every creature! And why not 
say this, as well as to say, that 'all things' 
means 'a part,' and that when Paul says, 'every 
knee shall bow,' he means, some knees shall 
bow? 

Thus sir, I have considered your assertions, 
and I think fully sustained my application of the 
four texts contained in letter No. 7. I have but 
=a short space for remarks on what you have said 
concerning my 8th letter. And but a few re- 
marks are necessary; for you have not attacked 
a single position which I there took concerning 
'^Gehenna. 

You charge me with scurrility in speaking of 
46 



268 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



Whitfield. Be it remembered, that I have not 
said a word lor or against him. I merely 
quoted his happy apology for rambling in one 
of his sermons, to justify my departure from 
the subject in discussion. 

Your proofs that Origen was the first Uni- 
versalis! , next claim our attention. 1. You 
deny that the Basilidians, Carpocratians, and 
Valentinians believed in the restoration of all 
men. But not a word have you given to prove 
this denial. To say 'I maintain,' 'I deny,' and 
'I assert' is quite easy, but no man who has 
proof will deal in such things in a controversy 
like this. In the Ancient History of Univer- 
salism, a work of undisputed authority and un- 
rivalled merit, p. 45, we read, "The Carpo- 
cratians, who arose at the same time with the 
Basilidians agreed with them in the final salva- 
tion of all souls.' On pp. 42 and 47 the same 
views are ascribed to the Valentinians. 

That these sects were fanatical, I admit, tho* 
Lardner says, 'that as bad things were said of 
the primitive christians, as were ever said of 
them.' Slandering opposing sects has been the 
besetting sin of Christians in all ages. Look at 
the vile things said of Methodists, at their first 
organization. But what if these sects were im- 
pious and fanatical, does that prove the doctrine 
of the restoration false? In all that the fathers 
said against them, we find not a word of com- 
plaint on this ground, which is indisputable 
proof, that the doctrine of the Restoration was 
the common sentiment of that day (A. D. 120.) 
If it had notbicn, they would have condemned 
them for this. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



269 



Were I disposed to flourish about honourable 
authority, as you have done, I could remind 
you that the Hebrews had no faith in endless 
wo, until their acquaintance with heathens, 
and 1 could show that this barbarous tenet has 
the same parentage with necromancy, witch- 
craft, idolatry and ail the fooleries and mumery 
of Pagan temples. Honourable authority! yea 
honourable origin! might I exclaim, but this is 
foreign from our discussion. 

2. The Sibyline Oracles. All your quotations 
respeeting these may be true,, and yet they 
teach Universalism. The fact in relation to 
these oracles is : They are the pretended prophe- 
cies of ancient sibyls, which were supposed to be 
prophetessess of extraordinary inspiration among 
the Romans and Greeks; and their books were 
only consulted on emergencies, and by order of 
the government. The great veneration in which 
these were held among the vulgar, induced some 
zealots to fabricate, under the name of the sibyls, 
and in the form of ancient predictions, a narrative 
of the most striking events of what was then con- 
sidered the Christian faith. This was sent out into 
the world to convert the heathens, by the . pre- 
tended testimony of their own prophetesses. The 
plan was seized with avidity by orthodox Chris- 
tians in general ; and Justin Martyr, Athenago- 
ras, Theophilus of Anticch and Clemens Aiexan- 
drinus, quote it as genuine, and urged its testimo- 
nies as indubitable evidence. What then, though 
these books were 'brought forth in iniquity,' they 
are valuable, inasmuch as they show the senti- 
ments of the Christians at that time. They were 
forged, according to Cave, A. D, 130, toDu Pin 



270 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



150, and to Lardner 169 or 190. In book n. p, 
212, Edit. Apropoei, Paris, 1607, we find the 
following, relative to mankind after the judgment, 
"The omnipotent incorruptible God, shall confer 
another favour on his worshippers, when they 
shall ask him : he shall save mankind from the 
pernicious fire and immortal agonies. This will 
he do," &c. Here sir,. is Univeisalism before 
Origen. 

8. Clemens Alexandrinus, who was bishop of 
Alexandria, and teacher of Origen, was a Uni- 
versalist. Daille, an orthodox writer says, "It 
is manifest, throughout his works, that Clemens 
thought all the punishments which God inflicts 
upon men are salutary, and executed by him only 
for the purpose of instruction and reformation. 
Of this kind he reckons the torments which the 
damned in hell will suffer. * * # * From 
which we discover, that Clemens was of the 
same opinion as his scholar Origen, who every 
where teaches, that all the punishments of those 
in hell are purgatorial, that they are not endless,' 
&c. Dallcei t)e Usu Patrum. Lib. u. cap. iv. 
Archbishop Potter teaches the same respecting 
Clemens. 

4. Sparks, in his Inquiry, page 351, says: 
"Universalism was a favourite tenet with the 
great and learned Origen ; and it is frequently 
mentioned in the writings both of the earlier and 
later Christian fathers. Some avow it to be their 
faith, and others introduce such allusions as to 
show that it was a tenet common to many Chris- 
tians at the time they wrote.' 

Thus sir, I think I have shown to the satisfac- 
tion of all that Universalism did exist before the 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 271 



days of Origen. And now, I desire to know from 
whence it was derived ? Not from the Jews for . 
they believed in endless misery ; and not from 
the Heathens for they also believed this. It must 
therefore have been derived from the Savior and 
his apostles. 

Respecting Origen's excommunication, I must 
offer a few words, though you have given no reply 
to what was said on this, in letter No. viii. where 
I have shown that he was not excommunicated for 
heresy. Eusebius says, "Demetrius seeing him 
doing well, great and illustrious and celebrated 
among all, was overcome by human infirmity, 
and wrote against him to the bishops thoughout 
the world, and attempted to traduce what he had 
done as a most absurd act, (referring to his prac- 
tical application of Matt. 19. 12.) Then as the 
most distinguished bishops of Palestine, and 
those of Cesarea and Jerusalem, judged Origen 
worthy of the first and highest honor, they or- 
dained him to the presbytery by the imposition of 
hands. He advanced, therefore at this time to 
great reputation, and obtained a celebrity among 
all men, and no little renown for his virtue and 
wisdom: but Demetrius, though he had no other 
.charge to urge than that act, which was done 
while but a boy, raised a violent accusation 
against him. He attempted, also, to involve those 
in his accusations, who had elevated him to the 
presbytery. Cruise's Eusebius pp. 226, 227. 

Your quotation from Mosheim stating that Ori- 
gen's excommunication met the approval of the 
bishops, is unfair in the extreme ; for the very 
next words which follow, Mosheim says, f th* 



272 



THEOLOGCIAL DISCUSSION. 



bishops of Achia, Palestine, Phonecia and Arabia 
declared their highest displeasure against it. 
Furthermore, in one year- from this Demetrius 
died, and with him all opposition to Origen. 
And after this Origen was again appointed to ex- 
plain the scriptures at Cesarea and the bishops 
of Palestine often sat under his instructions as 
though he were their master." Thus is it evident 
that Origen's sentiments were no cause of his ex- 
communication. I will only add, many of the 
doctrines which you have attributed to him, it is 
doubtful whether he ever held ; others he held 
only as speculative opinions, as some partialists 
do the opinion, that hell is in one of the comets, 
and that its torments consist in changes from ex- 
treme heat to extreme cold, caused by the comet 
coming near the sun and then flying off into the 
unknown regions of space. 

Your concluding remarks respecting our order 
are exceedingly illiberal, unjust and uncandid. 
Your hackneyed charge about diversity of opini- 
on has twice been thrown back upon 3 T our own 
cause. That relative to my violent treatment of 
Chauncy is wholly incorrect. So also is the one 
which declares that no man among us holds the 
same opinions for one month together. As it re- 
spects the changes of Universalism, I fearlessly 
assert that they have neither been as numerous 
or great within sixty-five years, as those of par- 
tialism. For the infidelity of Kneeland, I could 
find a dozen offsetts among partialists ; but such 
things are not proof, and my Master has forbidden 
me to render railing for railing. 

Your postscript contains but a lame apology for 
your false statement respecting Mr. Whittemore'a 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 273 



opinion about angels. You must have a treach- 
erous memory indeed, if you had read his notes 
on the Parables with any degree of attention, not 
to know, that the Christ. : an Spectator asserted 
what was absolutely false. The error into which 
you have fallen in this instance, should teach 
you caution in quoting' the testimony of bigoted, 
sectarian partialists against Universalism. 

Mr. Whittemore's work on the Parables is one 
of great merit and utility, and it should be in the 
hands of every biblical student; for it contains a 
vast fund of useful matter, respecting the 
manners, customs and laws of our Saviour's day, 
besides copious extracts from standard orthodox 
commentators, showing that his explanations have 
their sanction. Whether your 'surprise and dis- 
gust, will outweigh their testimony, is not for me 
to say. Having pointed out in this, and in letter 
No. vin. numerous other false statements, I will 
add nothing further. 

I am, &c. 

Otis A. Skinner. 



LETTER No. XIII. 

Baltimore, March 13, 1835. 
To Rev- Otis A. Skinner: 

Detfi* Sir — It is necessary that 
I should make some remarks on your eighth let- 
ter, and on that part of it in particular which 
relates to the term Gehenna. Every attentive 
reader must be aware that I have demonstrated 
the certainty of endless misery by the word 



274 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION* 



Gehenna, as used in the New Testament ; but 
lest some doubts should remain on the mind cf 
any one, i shall consider it more particularly. 
Your twelve facts, as you are pleased to call 
them, I consider to be nothing but twelve mis- 
erable subterTuges: the first four are founded 
on a falsehood, viz. that Gehenna is used in the 
Old Testament, and the other eight have no di- 
rect bearing on the subject. Your asserting* 
that apokteino 'to kill/ in Matt. x. 28, means 
to 'torture/ 'torment, 5 and that in direct contra- 
diction to Parkhurst, Bass, and Grove, is one of 
the most barefaced absurdities I have seen, and 
shows to what lengths a man will go, rather 
than acknowledge himself in error. Your pre- 
tended illustrations of the texts where Gehenna 
is used, I consider to be perversions and misap- 
plications which go much farther to darken and 
confuse than to explain and elucidate. Your 
assertion, that the discourse attributed to Jose- 
phus is universally considered the work of some 
Christian of the second or third century, whe- 
ther taken from a Boston or Baltimore or any 
other work,, I consider to be an impudent for- 
gery, carrying its own refutation in its front. 
This is one among the many lies and falsehoods 
invented and propagated by the Universalists to 
injure the truth and establish'error. In confir- 
mation of this, i shall observe that Mr. Whis- 
ton, the translator of Josephus's works, says of 
the discourse on Hades, in a note (Bait. edit. 
1333, 3 vo. page 458 ) 'Of these Jewish or Es- 
sene, and indeed, Christian doctrines concern- 
ing souls, both good and bad, in Hades, see 
that excellent discourse or homily of Josephus, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



275 



concerning Hades, at the end of the .work." — 
This note proves that the translator attributes 
the discourse to Josephus, and that he considers 
it as containing the sentiments of the Jews res- 
pecting a future state of happiness and misery. 
Here then is direct testimony in favour of my 
sentiment, and as long as this one exists your 
position must be false. 

Your saying that the Targums furnish no 
proof whatever, that Gehenna was used to sig 
nify endless woe, in the days of Christ, is ano- 
ther erroneous statement, and contrary to the 
opinion oi the most learned men. 

But the most absurd assertion, perhaps, n all 
your letters, is that wherein yoa declaredjlhat 
the opinfon that the Targums of Jonathan and 
Onkelos were written in the second or third 
century, had the sanction of the most eminent 
writers. Whether you declared this, as a de- 
liberate falsehood, which had been propagated 
by others to deceive, or through ignorance of 
the true state of the matter, 1 am unable to de- 
termine, but shall incline to the charitable side. 
As 1 consider it of the utmost importance to 
prove that the Targums, which use Gehenna as 
1 do, were written before the time of Christ, I 
shall lay before you the following testimony on 
the subject, which settles the matter beyond 
dispute. 

L Luesden,m hiVPhiiologjcus Hebreo-Mix- 
tus' (p. 44, edit. 1673,) says that, 'In the time 
of Hercarius, about forty years before Christ, 
Onkelos, author of the Targum, became a pro- 
selyte to the Jewish religion. 5 Again, (n. 50,) 
'Jonathan Ben Uzziel, the Targumist, wasone 
48* 



270 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



of the eighty renowned disciples of the celebra- 
ted Ilillel. 1 hat Jonathan translated the pro- 
phets is believed and asserted by the Jews-' 

2. II<>ttinger,\n his Thesaurus Philologicus (p. 
557,558. ed. 1649.,) says/ Onkclos, whose Tar - 
gum oti the Pentateuch was so celebrated, was 
contemporary with Gamaliel, who was the in- 
structor of Paul.' And again, (p. 259) 'Jona- 
than Ben Uzzitl, author of the Targum on the 
prophets, was a disciple of the renowned Hillrt.' 

3. Brewster, in his Encyclopedia {Phil. ed. 
1832, Art. Theology) says, 'But the mo I ueci 
ded evidence on this subject (the doctrine of 
the Trinity) is to be found in the Targums of 
Jonathan and Onkclos, the one being a com- 
mentary on the prophets, the other on the books 
of Moses. They are both written in Chaidee; 
that of Jonathan, according to Calmet, about 
thirty years before Christ ; that of Qnkelos not 
long after it, and they are both, till this day, 
held in the highest estimate among the Jews.' 

4 The Edinhnrg Encyclopedia, {Phil. ed. 
1798. Art. Targum,') states that, 'the Hebrews 
had no written paraphrases or Targums before 
the era of Onkelos and Jonathan, who lived ab- 
out the time of our Saviour. Jonathan is placed 
about thirty years before Christ, under the 
reign of Herod the Great. Onkelos is the most 
of all esteemed, and copies are to be found, in 
which it is inserted verse for verse with the 
Hebrew. * # * These Targums are of great 
use for the better understanding not only of the 
Old Testament, on which they are written, but 
also of the New. 3 

$. Hartwell Horns, in his introduction to ' A 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



277 



Critical study of the Scriptures/ says, (vol. 2. 
p. 159, Phil. erf. 'The generally receiv- 

ed opinion is, (Hat O-rikifoe was a proselyte to 
Jud«i«m, and a disciple of the celebra'ted Rab- 
bi Hittel, who flourished about fifty years before 
the Chsistian era: and consequently thai he 
was contempory with our Saviour. The Tar- 
gum of Onkelos comprises (he Pentateuch, or 
five books of Moses, and is justly preferred lo 
all others, both by Jews and Christians, on ac- 
count of the purity of its style, and its general 
freedom from idle legends.' Again, (p. 150^) 
'According to the Talmudical traditions, Jona- 
than Ben Czziel, author of the Targum, was 
chief of the eighty disciples of Rabbi Hilhl the 
-elder, and a fellow disciple of Simeon the Just, 
who bore the infant Messiah in his arms; con- 
sequently he would be nearly contemporary 
with Onkelos. Wolfins, however is of opinion 
that he flourished a short time before the birth 
of Christ, and compiled the work which bears 
his name from more ancient Targums', that had 
been preserved to his time by oral tradition. 5 

6. The American Encyclopaedia, (Phil. ed. 
1832, Art. T^gum,) states, that <th<3 oldest 
Targum is that of Onkelos, which comprises 
only the Pentateuch, the second one that of Jo- 
nathan, is a version of the prophets. These are 
supposed to have been written about the time 
of our Saviour.' 

7. Dr. Clarke, in the general preface to his 
Commentary, (p. 1.) says, 'Perhaps the most 
ancient comments of this (explanatory) kind, 
were the Chaldee Paraphrases or Targums, 
particularly those of Onkelos on the law, and 



273 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



Jonathan on the prophets ; the former written a 
short time before the Christian era, the latter 
about jifly years after the Incarnation. These 
comments are rather glosses on words, tlun an 
exposition? of things; and the former is little 
more than a verbal translation of the Hebrew 
text in pure Chuldee? 

8. Buck, in his Theological Dictionary, 
(Art Tar gum,) says, 'But though the custom 
of making- these sorts of exposilions in the Chal- 
dee language, be very ancient among the Ke • 
brews, yet they have no written paiaphrases or 
Targurns before the era of Onkelos and Jona- 
than, who lived about the time of our Saviour. 
Jonathan is placed about thirty years before 
Christ, under the reign of Herod the Great 
Onkelos is something more modern.' 

9. Prideaux. in his Connexions of the Old and 
New Testaments, ( vol 2, Bait. edit. 1S33, p 
343,J says, 'As the Targum of Onkelos is the 
first in order of place, as being on the Penta- 
teuch, which is the first part of the holy scrip- 
tures, so, I think, it is not to be doubted but 
that it is the first also in order of time, fetid the 
most ancient that was written of all- that are 
now extant. The Jewish writers, though they 
allow him to have been, for some time of his 
life, contemporary with Jonathan Ben Uzziel, 
the author of the second Targum above men- 
tioned, yet make him much the younger of the 
two ; for they tell us that Jonathan was one oi 
the prme scholars of Hillel, who died about 
the time when our Saviour was born, but that 
Onkelos survived Gamaliel the elder, Paul's 
master, (who was the grandson of Hillel, and 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



died not till eighteen years before the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem,) for they relate that Onkelos 
assisted at the funeral of this Gamaliel, provi- 
ded for it seventy pounds of frankincense at his 
own charge.' Again, (page 351) 'Whether the 
Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan were re- 
ceived for this use (the explanation of the He- 
brew text) so early as our Saviour's time, I can- 
not say; but this seems certain, if not these par- 
ticular Targums., yet some others were then in 
hands for the instruction cf the people, and were 
read among them in private as well as in public, 
for this purpose, and that they had such not only 
on the law and the prophets, but also on all the 
other Hebrew scriptures. * * * And when 
Christ was called out to read the second lesson 
in the synagogue of Nazareth, of which he was 
a member, he seems to have read it out of a 
Targum.' 

10. Robinson, in ins edition of Calmet's Dic- 
tionary, (Boston, 1832, Art. Versions,) says, 
'The Chaldee translations were already in use, 
in the time of Christ, as is apparent from Mat. 
xxvii. 46, among other passages, where the 
words are quoted according to the Chaldee ver- 
sion. * * # Onkelos, author of the Tar- 
gum containing the Pentateuch, was, most pro- 
bably a pupil of Hillel, the grandfather of Ga- 
maliel, Paul's instructor. * * * Jonathan 
Ben Uzziel, author of the Targum on the his- 
torical books and prophets, lived a short time 
before the birth of Chiist. 

11. In the Treasury of Knowledge, (p. 106, 
part 3, New York ed. 1834,J under the head 
1 Versions of the Scriptures' I find the following 



280 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



account of the Targums : 'The Chalrlee Para- 
phrases or Targums, so called, are translations 
of the Scriptures into the Chaldean language. 

The Tar gum of Onkelos, who is generally 
supposed to be a disciple of Rabbi Rillel, who 
flourished about 50 years before the Christian 
era. 

The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, who 
was contemporary with Onkelos, and also with 
our Saviour.' 

12. The editors of the Comprehensive Bible, 
in their introduction {p. 69, Hartford ed. 1832,) 
say, c The Targum of Onkelos, who is general- 
ly supposed to be a disciple of Rabbi Hiilel, 
who flourished about 50 years before the Chris- 
tian era, comprises the Pentateuch, and is 
nearly a verbal translation of the Hebrew text 
into pure Chaldee. 

The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, who 
was contemporary with Onkelos, and also with 
our Saviour, is a paraphrase on the prophets 
from Ezra to Ezekiel inclusive, and approaches 
nearer to Onkelos in purity of style, especially 
in the former prophets, than any of the other 
Targums. 5 

On these twelve extracts, in relation to the 
dates of the Targums, I have to make a few re- 
marks in order to set the subject under consid- 
eration in a more luminous point of view. 

1. The Targums are commentaries or para- 
phrases on the Hebrew scriptures, designed to 
convey the true sense of the text to the com- 
mon people. As the Jewish people, during the 
Babylonish captivity, had forgotten the Hebrew 
language, and made use of the Chaldee, it was 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 281 

necessary that these paraphrases should be made, 
not in the Hebrew, but in the Chaldee lan- 
guage. 

.2. These Targums or commentaries, whether 
oral or written, were in use soon after the Jews 
returned from Babylon to their native land; and 
the written Targums of Jonathan and Onkelos 
were composed some time before the Incarna- 
tion. 

3. The word Gehenna is used, in these Tar- 
gums, to signify everlasting fire, or the punish- 
ment of the wicked, by fire, in a future state, in 
all the following places: Gen. iii. 24; and xv. 
17; Psal. cxl. 12;Isa. xxvi. 15; xxxiii. 14; xxxiv. 
14. As the revelation of God to mankind was 
committed to the Jews, and as the inspired pro- 
phets were raised up among them, and lived 
among them, it is absolutely certain that, no 
people had a better right to understand the true 
meaning of the sacred text than they. 

4. Our Lord being a Jew, according to the 
flesh, and reading the Targarus, in which Ge- 
henna is used to signify endless burnings, in the 
synagogue and elsewhere, as is believed, he 
must have used the word, in his discourses, not 
for the valley of Jerusalem, but for everlasting 
burnings, in a future state. That any one should 
pretend to doubt this, for it is only pretension, is 
of all things most astonishing. 

5. In all cases of dispute respecting the mean- 
ing of a word, an appeal must be made to dic- 
tionaries and lexicons. 1 have done this, in my 
eighth letter, I cited twelve authorities who all 
concur in saying Gehenna means everlasting fire^ 



2S2 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

in a future state. I there stated that, if you 
could produce half the number who say it does 
not mean future wo, I would give it up: but 
you could not produce one single author to sus- 
tain your views. What am I to do in this case? 
I appeal to the judgment of the public to decide, 
whether I have not finally settled the argument 
in dispute. Iam satisfied I have, and if any 
defect can be produced, I pledge myself to set it 
straight. 

To sum up the whole matter in a few words, 
it may be observed that, the word Gehenna oc- 
curs twelve times in the New Testament. It is 
derived from Ghi, a valley, and Hinnom, the 
name of a person, who once possessed it; and sig- 
nifies hell-fire. In this sense it was used by the 
authors of the Targums before our Saviour's 
time, and consequently by the Jews generally, 
as is manifest by Mr. Whiston's note concerning 
Hades. This is the sense in which Gehenna 
was explained to the Gentile converts about the 
year 150, by Justin Martyr. Arid in fact, no 
one, I believe, ever called in question or denied 
this explanation of Gehenna till within these 
late years, when the demoralizing heresy of 
Universaiism began to stalk through the land 
with brazen effrontery. 

Now sir, I shall consider the question as final- 
ly settled, and so it must remain, till you prove 
by sufficient authority, that the Targums were 
not written about the time of Christ, and this 
you cannot do till the last trumpet shall sound. 

Now let me address myself to such as have 
been led away from the truth of Holy Scrip- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 255 



ture, by the art and cunning of designing men, 
for such I consider all those who use sophistical 
reasoning to propagate a doctrine which was un- 
known in the days of Christ and his apostles. 
Fellow Christians, we are all hastening to eter- 
nity, to the judgment seat of Christ, before 
whom we must all shortly appear. We have 
the Holy Scriptures to teach us our duty to God, 
to our neighbor, and to ourselves. These scrip- 
tures teach us, in clear terms, all the doctrines 
of God, so far as he has revealed them to man- 
kind. Every enquiring mind, by a little atten- 
tion to the Bible, may see that the doctrine of 
endless punishment is as clearly revealed as that 
of endless happiness. The Jews unquestion- 
ably understood the Bible to teach the doctrine 
of endless misery. Christ and his apostles 
taught this doctrine, and Justin Martyr, in the 
second century, taught the same; and, in fact, 
no man ever taught the doctrine- of a Universal 
restoration till Origen broached the sentiment 
about the year 206; consequently, it was un- 
known in the days of the apostles. You have 
more than five hundred passages of scripture that 
cannot be reconciled with the doctrine. But, 
supposing the doctrine is true, you can lose noth- 
ing in a future state by believing in the eternity, 
of hell's torments; for th meere belief of the 
doctrine of endless misery will not make it 
endless, unless it really is so. Therefore, if I 
am in error, my error will have no bad conse- 
quence, if Universalism be true, but the Uni- 
versalists will be awfully disappointed, if their 
doctrine turn out to be false. Consequently, 
we should use every possible means to prepare 



284 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



for the worst. We are all sinners before the 
Almighty God, and his word teaches that we 
must repent of sin, believe in Jesus Christ with 
a heart unto righteousness, be regenerated by 
the Holy Spirit, and live a life of obedience and 
love to God, doing good to mankind as far as 
possible. All those who pursue this course, and 
those alone, have the word and oath of Mm who 
cannot lie, to secure to them eternal life and 
happiness btyond the grave. 

Now sir, the question being settled, beyond 
the possibility of a doubt on the subject, I shall 
let the matter rest. But, if you shall produce 
any thing, by way of objections to what I have 
stated, bearing any marks of plausibility, I am 
ready to shew their fallacy. 

Your s, &c. 

Joseph M'Kee. 



LETTER No. XIII. 

Baltimore, April 2, 1835. 
To Rev. Joseph M'Kce: 

Dear Sir — You have a singular 
propensity for asserting, that £ you have incon- 
trovertibly proved y our positions. 5 Hence your 
present letter is commenced by declaring, that 
you have 'demonstrated the eternity of misery, 
by the word Gehenna.\- It is well sir, to keep 
up the appearance of courage and success, but 
really, when every argument which you have 
adduced has been fully noticed, and when you 
have attempted a reply to only two or three of 



THEOLOGICAL mSCUSSIOIC 



235 



an assertion smacks quite too much of mock 
confidence, to have the credit of sincerity. It 
is true, you have backed it up by asserting that 
my twelve facts in letter No. 8, are 'twelve, 
miserable subterfuges,' that my 'criticism 
on apokteino is in direct opposition to Park- 
hurst,' [Not so, I gave Parkhurst as one of 
my authorities, Donnegan as another,] and one 
of the most barefaced absurdities you ever saw, 5 
&c.j, all of which is very charitable, very argu- 
mentative ! And such is the proof by which 
you have demonstrated,, that Gehenna over- 
throws Universalism ! 

The first four of my twelve facts, you assert, 
c are founded on a falsehood viz. that Gehenna 
is used in the Old Testament.' Doubtless the 
reader supposes, I ha^e here committed some 
egregious blunder, or told some daring lie, for 
this your language implies. 

But what is the fact? Why in the Old Tes- 
tament, Gehenna is written Gehinnom Thus 
because the word is differently written in the 
New, from what it is in the Old Testament, I 
am accused of falsehood ! It is the same word, 
only written Gehenna instead of Gehinnom \ 
And such are the arguments by which the fal- 
sity of my twelve facts is shown! But sir, ac- 
cording to this logic, Gehenna does not occur 
in Jonathan's Targum, for there it is written 
Hinnom; so that if what I asserted be false, 
you must yield the Targums. 

This play upon the word Gehenna is in per- 
fect keeping with the charge that what I said 
respecting the discourse in Josephus on Hades, 
is 'an impudent forgery? and 'one among the 
49 



*85 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



many lies and falsehoods, invented and propa- 
gated by Uni verbalists, to injure the truth and 
establish error. 1 But Chat I am correct is evi- 
dent from the following- considerations: 

1. This discourse is not in Hudson's Critical 
edition of Josephus, of which Home (vol. 2, p. 
306 J thus speaks: 

'Those distinguished Bibliographers, Fabrici- 
us, Harwood, Harles, and Oberthur, are unani- 
mous in their commendations of. this elegant and 
most valuable edition.' He also says, 'Dr. Hud- 
son seems to have consulted every known manu- 
script and edition. The correctness of the Greek 
text, the judgment displayed in the annotations, 
the utility of the indexes, and the consummate 
knowledge which is evinced of the history and 
antiquity of the time, render this work deserv- 
ing of everything said in commendation of it.' 

2. It is the same work which the learned 
quote under the following titles : 'Concerning 
the cause of the Universe;' 'Concerning ihe 
Universe;' Concerning the Universal Cause;' 
'Concerning Universal Nature. 3 This discourse 
is barely alluded to in the Prefatio (written by 
Antonius Hallius, for Hudson did nol live to 
publish his edition) to Hudson's Edition, among 
the pieces falsely ascribed to Joseph us; and then 
Fabricius is quoted, who szys,(BibUothecaGra>- 
ca } Art. Be Joscpho it ejus Scriptis, § 8,) that 
Dodwell and others attribute it to Caiusor Hip- 
polytus. two Christian fathers of the end of 
the 2d or beginning of the 3d century. 
Du Pin (Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. 1, Art. 
Czius,) says, tkat Photius, the most learn- 
ed and accurate critic in ecclesiastical affairs of 
my arguments on this subject, I do think, suck 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 257 



fctt antiquity after Eusebius, attributes to Caius, 
'The treatise of the Universe/ or of the '.Nature 
©f the Universe/ or of the causes thereof, which 
went in his time under the name of Josephus.' 
Photius lived in the 8th ceutury. Du Pin also 
observes {Ibid.) that Photius says, 'some had 
attributed the piece to Irenaus, some to Justin 
Martyr, and that it had no author's name affix- 
ed to it." Photius says too, 'that Caius in one of 
his works remarked, 'that he was the author of 
the Book concerning the nature of the Universe.' 
This same book is set down in the catalogue of 
HlppoJytUs 5 works, taken from an ancient Ro- 
man marble, dug up near Rome in 1551. See 
Du Pin (BibUoth. Pair. vol. 1 jfat. Hippoly- 
tus.) 

3. The 'Discourse concerning Hades/ is I be- 
lieve never quoted by any respectable critic as 
Josephus's; nor is it made use of, by those who 
have carefull} sifted Josephus, to get every 
particle of evidence he affords, concerning the 
Jewish notions of a future state, the Messiah, 
and the several subjects of which this discourse 
treats. 

4 No one can carefully read this discourse, 
without being satisfied, from its general tenor 
and language, that it was written by some one 
familiar with the Mew Testament, and that 
many passages, especially of St. Paul are re- 
ferred to; and that, in one word, the author 
wrote in the character of a Christian, expecting 
and meaning to be so understood-. If so, he 
certainly was not Josephus. 

From the foregoing proofs, the reader can 
judge whether any reliance can be placed on 
50 



283 THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION. 



the Discourse concerning Hades; and whether 
my assertion respecting it is a forgery and a 
falsehood. Surely you betray unpardonable 
ignorance on this subject, to make such charges. 
Thus we see that the Discourse concerning 
Hades prove nothing respecting Gehenna. 

I will now proceed to notice the dates of the 
Targums. That these are a matter of critical 
conjecture, I am willing to admit. And this 
none can dispute, for some have supposed that 
they were written befoie Christ, and some as 
late as A. D. 700 or 800. Now to say that books 
of such uncertain dates, determine for a cer- 
tainty the meaning of Gehenna, is surely highly 
unreasonable. 

And even were I not a Universalist, I should 
require some stronger proof, than has ever yet 
been given, before they could outweigh in my 
mind, the declaration of Christ, that the 'dam- 
nation of Gehanna' should come on the genera- 
tion to which he spake. Why have you not 
answered this argument? Why have you pas- 
sed it in entire silence? On this generation 
shall the damnation of hell come ! 'This gene- 
ration shall not pass away till Christ come,' 
Matt. xxiv. 34. 'There be some standing here 
which shall not taste death till they see the Son 
of man come.' Matt. xvi. 27. This damnation 
of Gehenna, then, was to come at the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem. You may as well reason 
against your own existence, as against this fact. 
Besides, this was the figure by which the pro- 
phets ibretold it- But sir, to say nothing of these 
arguments, the simple fact, that only the Jews 
and those connected with their nation, were 
threatened with Gehenna ; that it is not men- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION- 



289 



tioned in the Gospel of John, who wrote for the 
Gentiles, not in his epistles, not in all the writ- 
ings of Paul, not in the epistles of Peter or 
Jude, and not in the book of Revelations, — I say 
this simple fact, outweighs all that you have 
said, or by the aid of Ta." gums can say, on Ge- 
henna. Because, if it had signified a future hell, 
the Gentiles would have been threatened with 
it. But these arguments are only three out of 
a long catalogue, which I have produced oa this 
subject, and which you have not attempted to 
answer. 

But to the dates of the Targums. As the 
Targum of Onkelos does not contain the word 
Gehenna, or anything about future punishment, 
we will confine our remarks to that of Jonathan 
Ben Uzziel. 

1. The older critics among the moderns, like 
Prideaux,generally ascribe it to about the Chris- 
tian era, on the authoritychiefly of Jewish tra- 
ditions. The same is true of the English critics, 
even down to this day. This will account for the 
opinions which you have been able to collect. 
But apart from this, it must be confessed, that 
some of your authorities are far from being re- 
sponsible on a critical subject like this. Who 
would think of quoting Buck, as authority in 
history or antiquity, or on anything except the 
single point of the orthodox notions which he 
held, and with which he was acquainted? — 
Clarke may be a little more trust-worthy, but 
he followed the traditions of the Jews on this 
point. Brewster's, the Edinburgh and the 
American Encyclopaedias are mere compi- 
lations, and are never received as responsible 



*90 



THEOLOGGIAL DISCUSSION. 



authorities on these or any critical points, and 
every respectable criiic will be greatly surpris- 
ed, that a man of your pretensions to learning, 
should quote them. Leusden (who was never 
distinguished as a judge of such questions, and 
whose province did not lay within this subject,) 
and Hottinger were both old authors,, who lived 
before the era of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben 
Uzziel had been carefully inquired into. Home, 
Calmet,, and your other authorities have fol- 
lowed the traditions of the Jews. Hence oh page 
160 Home says, ^According to the Talmudical 
traditions, Jonathan Ben Uzziel w r as chief of the 
eighty distinguished scholars of Rabbi Hill el,, the 
elder, and a fellow disciple of Simeon the Just, 
who bore the infant Messiah in his arms.' I wall 
here add, according to these traditions, Jonathan 
was contemporary with Malachi, Haggai, and 
Zechariah, and received his Targum from their 
lips. Not only so, according to these, while Jo- 
nathan w r as writing his Targum, there was an 
earthquake for 40 leagues around him, and if any 
bird happened to pass over him, or a fly alighted 
on his paper while writing, they were immedi- 
ately consumed by fire from heaven, without any 
injury being sustained either by his person or 
paper. So much for the authority of Jewish 
traditions; and as these seem to have guided all 
your authorities on this subject, it shows just how 
much weight they are entitled to. 

2. Let us now examine what a majority of 
the most eminent late German critics say on 
this subject. Higher authority than these can- 
not be given. 

John says, "From this it is evident, that he ? 



Theological discussion 



291 



(the author of Jonathan's Targum) must have 
lived long before the time of the Talmudists, / 
and not as some have supposed, in the 5th or 
6th century, since in that case his history would 
have been better known. * # # We may 
properly infer, that the work is a collection of 
the interpretations of several learned men, 
made towards the close of the 3d century, [N- 
B. In the preceding instances, Jahn seems to 
prefer the date of about A. D. 282.] and con- 
taining some of a much older date. Jahn^s In- 
troduction to the Old Testament, Gen- Intro- 
duction § 47, page 66. 

JEKchhorn, who in the beginning of the pres- 
ent century was probably accounted the first 
Biblical scholar of Germany and of the woild,, 
says 'first, that many refer the author of Jona- 
than Ben Uzziel's Targum, to a period a little 
before the birth of Christ; 'but,' continues he, 
c he certainly lived later. His Targum. to judge 
by its style, is the work of some Palestine Jew; 
still the Jerusalem Talmud says nothing of it, 
any more than do Origen and Jerome. How 
could it remain unknown to those Talmudists 
as well as to those Christian fathers, who lived 
in Palestine, if it were already in circulation 
in their time ? Moreover, it is full of such fa- 
bles as first gained currency in Palestine at a 
later period. Finally, in it* translation of pas- 
sages, it strives to conceal all tracesof the Mes- 
siah in those texts which the Christians applied 
to him; a manifest proof that the translator liv- 
ed at a time, when the Christians were already 
in controversy with the Jews, to say nothing 
of the circumstance, that a Chaldaic translation 
51 



£92 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

[i. e. Targum,] was not used in the synagogue 
at so early a period. Even if the Targum on 
the Chronicles, which mentions the Turks, 
should not be reckoned to belong to this, still it 
appears that no Targum on the Prophets [N- 
E. Jonathan's Targum is on the prophets.] was 
in use before the 4th century, or rather later/ 
Eichhorn's Einleitmg in das aUe Testament. 
Kap. iii. §226, Band. ii. S. 6364. Gottingen, 
1823. 

Bertholdt, a contemporary of Eichhorn. and 
one of the most eminent orientalists of the last 
generation in Germany, after having mention- 
ed Onkelos's Targum says, 1 Another Targum 
on the earlier and later prophets, bears the 
name of Jonathan, the Son of Uzziei. The 
Talmud reckons him among the Jerusalem dis- 
ciples of the aged Hillel; and therewith agrees 
the tradition of the later Jews, who made him 
to have flourished 160 years before the destruc- 
tion of the second temple. According to this 
reckoning, Jonathan would have been a cotem- 
porary with Onkelos, only somewhat younger. 
But we cannot possibly carry him back to so 
early an age. The Talmudists must have con- 
founded a Jonathan, who lived in Palestine in 
the end of the second or beginning of the third 
century with the earlier Jonathan. For the 
Targum which bears Jonathan's name, cannot 
have been completed before the end of the 2nd 
century. In it there are texts, (for example 
lsai. liii. and lxiii. 1 — 5,) universally regarded 
by the Jews, at the birth of Christ, as prophe- 
cies of the Messiah, which are here explained 
in another manner. This betrays the spirit of 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



I 



the 2nd century, when the Jews were deeply 
engaged in controversy with the Christians, 
and when being pressed, and seeking relief on 
every hand, they adopted new principles in the 
explanation of many Old Testament passages. 
Moreover, the language of Jonathan's Targum, 
which abounds with ioreign words, indicates 
the second or third century. Later than this 
however, we cannot place it, for when JYlorinus 
and J. Vossius thought it was not composed 
before the 7th or 8thcentury, they did not con- 
sider that its language is far purer than in the 
later Targums, or in all the Aramoean writings 
of this late period.' BertholcWs Historischcrit- 
sche Einleitimg in Schriften des alt. und neu 
Test. Zweyter. Th. § 173. 

I might mention other German orientalists 
of reputation, as Bauer, &c but I will only 
add, that though Gessenius, a distinguished 
Hebrew scholar, decides in favour of the earlier 
date of Jonathan's Targum, placing it about the 
Christian era, his opinion does not seem to have 
been considered authoritative in Germany; 
for Kuinoel, the celebrated commentator on the 
historical books of the New Testament, in his 
commentary on John, revised in 1825, since 
Gessenius advanced his opinion above noticed; 
Kuinoel, [ say, relies on Eichhorn as authority, 
and quotes the Targums as the work of the 3d 
or 4th century. And he probably in such a 
work, took the prevalent opinion of the judges 
of such questions. Comment in Evangelium 
Johan. Prolegom p. 109. Lips. 1825. 

Thus do we see, that the prevalent opinion 
among the German critics is, that Jonathan's 
51* 



294 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



Targum was written at the close of the 2d or 
beginning of the 3d century; and no higher au- 
thority on this pointy can be quoted. Mr. 
D wight expressed an universal opinion,, when 
in his travels through Germany,, he declared 
that the Germans in Biblical knowledge,, were 
a century in advance of all the other nations of 
Europe. Buck, sir, and Encyclopaedias, are 
but the mere echo of a traditional opinion, and 
are not to be compared with men who have ex- 
amined for themselves into the merits of this 
question. And what I say of Buck, I say of 
nearly all your authorities, excepting Luesden, 
Hottinger, and some others, who followed the 
traditions of the Jews on this subject. It is 
pretty certain, therefore, that this Jonathan 
who was a disciple of Hlllel, was not the Jona- 
than who wrote the Targum; and that his Tar 
gum was written at about the beginning of 
the 3d century. If so, it proves nothing about 
the New Testament use of Gehenna. 

Before noticing the inferences wHch you 
have drawn from your authorities respecting 
Gehenna, I will introduce a few arguments to 
show, that the word could not have been used 
in its present popular sense in the daysof Christ. 
Taking it for granted, that Gehenna in the Old 
Testament never signifies a place of future tor~ 
mantj we wish to show 7 : 

1. That it is not used in this sense in the 
Apochrypha. Hell occurs in the following pla- 
ces: 2 Esdras ii. 29 ; iv. 8; viii. 53; Tobit xiii. 
2; Wisd. xvii. 14; Eccles. xxi. 10; li. 5, 6. Song 
of the three children, v. 66. In all these texts, 
Gehenna is not used. Hades is the word in th# 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 295 



original. Now when we consider that two books 
of the Apochrypha (Wisdom of Solomon and 2d 
of Maccabees,,) contain allusions to future punish- 
ment,, bat not under the figure of Gehenna., (as 
the word does not occur in them,) it shows con- 
clusively, that Gehenna retained its etymologi- 
cal use, till near the Christian era, (the time ac- 
cording to Prideaux and Home,, when these two 
books were composed,) for if it had not, they 
would, without doubt, have introduced it. In- 
deed, why not, as well as Jonathan, if he wrote, 
as you say, his Targum about this time ? 2. In 
all the writings extant at the period between the 
time of the Old and New Testament, we never 
find future punishment represented by fire, but 
uniformly by darkness, night, and death. This 
shows then, that Gehenna during all this period, 
retained its etymological sense, and that Jona- 
than's Targum, could not have been written, 
when you say, for in that, Gehenna is represent- 
ed as an abode of fire, and not of darkness. 
3. Josephus, whose e writings bear date be- 
tween A.D. 70 and A. D. 100, never introduces 
Gehenna in those passages where he speaks of 
the state of the wicked after death, nor in any 
other part of his works.'* 

The foregoing facts, taken in connexion with 
what we have proved respecting the date of Jo- 
nathan's Targum, show conclusively, to my 
mind, that as late as A. D. 100, Gehenna retain- 

* The facts of these three statements are tak- 
en from Balfour's Inquiry, and an Article on Ge 
henna, by H. Ballou 2nd. published in the Uni- 
versalist Expositor, vol. ii. No. 12. 



296 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION- 



ed among the Jews, the sense it has in the Old 
Testament. And as Christ addressed Jews, he 
must have used it in the same sense. Otherwise 
he misled his hearers. 

'From the time of Josephus onwards, there is 
an interval of about a century , from which no 
Jewish writings have descended to us. It was a 
period of dreadful change and ruin with that dis- 
tracted people. Their body politic was dissolved; 
the whole system of their ceremonial religion had 
been crushed in the fall of their city and temple; 
and they themselves scattered abroad, were ac- 
cursed on all the face of the earth. In these cir- 
cumstances, it was natural that their sentiments 
and usages should undergo a rapid modification; 
and if we may judge from the state in which we 
find their doctrine, when their own compositions 
again appear in view, they adopted almost 
every conceit, provided it were sufficiently extra- 
vagant and ridiculous, that ever crossed the brain 
of a madman.'* Among these was that of repre- 
senting hell by Gehenna. 

I will now examine the inferences you have 
drawn from your authorities on the dates of the 
Targums. Passing over the 1st and 2d infer- 
ences which we have proved false, (for if the 
Targums were not written, they could not have 
been read in the synagogue at the time you sa} r ,) 
I will consider your 3d inference. Here you 
have referred to Gen. iii. 24; xv. 17; but Jonath- 
an has no Targum on this book, or any of the 
five books of Moses; and Onkelos's Targum does 



*Jlrt. Gehenna, by H. Ballon 2nd in Univer* 
Expos, vol. % JYo. 12. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



297 



not contain Gehenna or any allusion to future 
punishment. You have been misled therefore, 
by the Targum falsely attributed to Jonathan, 
which is often quoted for authority on Gehenna. 
Besides, I doubt whether you or any Methodist 
would pretend that the texts to which you refer, 
teach endless misery in Gehenna, or any other 
place. Hence you would differ from the Tar- 
gums here, and thus oppose in sentiment a people, 
whom you intimate understood correctly the Bi- 
ble. But why such an intimation, when you and 
all Christians believe, that notwithstanding- all 
their privileges, the Jews erred egregiously on 
some of the leading and most plain doctrines of 
the Bible? 

Y our 4th inference being drawn from the dates 
of the Targums is false; and of course Jesus used 
Gehenna in the sense of the Old Testament. — 
Your 5th respecting the 12 Lexicographers ap- 
pears with an ill grace, when we consider, that 
the 12 facts which I adduced as an offset, still 
stand in undisputed strength. Besides these 
Lexicographers, forming their opinion chiefly on 
the dates of the Targums were misled here ; and 
before they can be regarded as authority on Ge- 
henna, you must disprove what I have said, 
respecting the dates of the Targums. Not only 
so, the testimony of a thousand men, will weigh 
nothing in my mind, when they thus contradict 
the language of Jesus, that the damnation of 
hell should come on the generation then living. 
Your offer to give up the argument, if I would 
produce six Lexicographers, who say Gehenna 
does not signify endless misery, is puerile in the 
extreme. What ! a question lilve this to be de- 



^98 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



cided by vote ! This is really sir., a very clas- 
sical idea. But I have no confidence in these of- 
fers, for in a previous instance, you made one re- 
specting aion, which I accepted, and demon- 
strated your error; but you have not had the ho- 
nor to abide by } r our voluntary offer. 

'To sum up the whole matter then, in a few 
words,' you are entirely mistaken respecting the 
dates of the Targums, and the sense of Gehenna. 
Of this, there is not the least imaginable doubt. 
5Tour assertion, that Justin Martyr used Gehenna 
to signify endless wo, is entirely false, for he did 
not himself believe the doctrine, being an ad- 
vocate for the annihilation of the wicked. And I 
defy you or any man to prove, that a single chris- 
tian father advocated endless misery, before we 
find Universalism taught in the church. This 
fact, when we consider that the notion of endless 
misery prevailed among Jews and Heathens, 
shows that Christ and. the Apcstles taught Uni- 
versalism; for if they did not, how did the chris 
tians learn it ? 

Tertullian, who lived A. D. 200, is thought 
to have been the first who asserted that misery 
would be of equal duration with happiness. The 
Universalists of the present age, therefore, are 
not the first who denied that Gehenna signified 
endless misery. Clemens, Origen, Ambrosius, 
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Alexander, bishop of 
Jerusalem, and Theosticus, bishop of Cesarea, 
denied it; and so did many of the fathers, from 
the days of Origen down to A. D. 370, among* 
whom were Titos, bishop of Bostra; Basil, bishop 
ef Nyssa, Gregory Nyssen, Didymus and Jerome; 
to say nothing of the distinguished men in after 



THEOLOGICAL BISCUSSIOX. 



599 



ages before and since the reformation. And sir, 
there is one lesson which I earnestly desire that 
you and all the partialists of this age may learn 
from those fathers,, who were with you in senti- 
ment. I refer to the fact, that in no instance, 
did they withdraw their fellowship from Uni- 
versalists, cr give the slightest intimation cf un- 
friendly feeling towards them, until A. D. 390, 
and even long after this, many of the bishops, 
who openly avowed it, enjoyed the full commu- 
nion and fellowship of the church. How does- 
this shame the exclusiveness, the denunciations, 
and the charge of heresy which Universalists 
now encounter from their opposers ! Alas ! times 
have sadly changed! Even you sir, with all 
your pretended liberality, cannot write a letter 
without interlarding it with heresy, heretic, here- 
siarch, and without accusing me of deliberate 
falsehoods. 

From the conclusion of your letter I judge, 
that you have nearly exhausted your stock of 
argument. With all the cant and farcical sol- 
emnity of a stupid fanatic, you assume the 
character of a whining exhorter, like a bigoted 
old lady, with whom I once conversed. After I 
had disposed of all the arguments which she 
could muster, she said, with a sigh, ( l do not 
w r ish to argue any longer,, but I wish to exhort 
and warn you of )'our danger.' And so with 
you; after having every argument, which you 
can adduce, promptly answered, you turn to 
warning and exhorting! 

Not only so, you bring in the childish argu- 
ment of a double chance, as though God will 
damn Universalists for believing him infinitely 



300 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

good j or as though a belief in endless wo is es- 
sential to salvation, or as though the tendency of 
cruelty is better than that of love. Had you been 
just, you would have credited your double chance 
argument to the builders of Babel, for they, fear- 
ing that God might lie, thought it best to be on 
the safe side, and have a tower on which to go 
up, in case the promise of God should fail. You, 
with other partialists, are endeavouring to erect 
a Babel, on which you can climb to heaven, but 
you have already been cursed with confusion of 
tongues ; for you agree on no point except that 
Universalists are heretics, and will be damned. 
I am, &,c. 

Otis A. Skinner. 



LETTER No. XIV. 

Baltimore, April. 10, 1835. 
To Rev. Otis A. Skinner. 

Dear Sir— I do not consider it ne- 
cessary to bring forward any more of the hund- 
reds of arguments which I have in store, to prove 
the eternity of future punishment, as the ques- 
tion is unanswerably settled in my last letter. 
However, it may not be amiss to notice some of 
your unfounded charges and evasions. 

In your second letter you charge me with mak- 
ing imperfect quotations from Lexicons-, but the 
matter swells as you get along ; for, in your 
ninth letter you do not hesitate to say I perverted 
authorities, with allusion to the same thing. In 
the introduction to your letter, you use the words 
'perversion, 1 ''perverted,' 'perverting, 1 eight times 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. SOI 

in reference to the same thing,' instead of produc- 
ing- an instance of perversion. This line of con- 
duct shows that your arguments consist in as- 
sertions rather than proof. You go on and say, 
"Let us consider the eleven texts where aicn is 
not governed by eis." But what follows ? Six 
texts only, out of eleven are touched at : the 
other five are passed in silence ! You go on and 
say, " I deny that aion in the singular, when 
governed by eis is endless in the following texts." 
Then follow twenty-five references including 
three of the texts in dispute ! One of these texts 
which you say is not endless is, 2 John 2. "For 
the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us and shall 
be with us forever." Now it is manifest, that, 
if the truth shall not be with us to eternity, it 
will leave us, or we shall be separated from it ; 
and this can take place in only one of two ways, 
(viz.) we shall be annihilated, or be abandoned to 
delusion and falsehood, either of which destroys 
the doctrine of Universalism. Who would have 
thought that Mr. Skinner denied the doctrine of 
Universalism. The same argument, precisely, 
can be drawn from 1 Pet. i. 23, 25, for the same 
word aphthartos, which is applied to the resur- 
rection body, 1 Cor. xv. 52, is applied to the 
word of God, so that if the word does not mean 
endless, when employed to express the duration 
of God's word, neither does it mean endless when 
applied to the bodies of the saints. The word 
aion in 1 John n. 17, must mean endless dura- 
tion; as it is set in contrast with this world The 
latter is said to pass away, but the former abideth 
forever. 

You say I perverted or garbled Dr. Maelaine's 



S02 THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION 

note,, taken from Mosheim. 1 do not know what 
you mean by perverting the views of an author, 
ff you mean that I have given something not to 
be found in the author quoted., it is your business 
to detect the matter; but., this you have not done. 
If you mean by the word perversion 1 that I have- 
not given all the author has said on the subject,, 
then,, I admit I have perverted every author I 
qnoted, and our blessed Saviour,, and the writers 
of the New Testament did the same, for in quot 
ing from the Old Testament, they did not quote 
all that was written on the subject of discussion. 

I did suspect some of your citations to be for- 
geries, nor has my suspicion been removed. I 
did not call on you for dates or editions of Lexi- 
cons as you have more than once pretended, but 
I called on you for the page and dates of other 
authors, which you cited to set aside the views of 
some of the most learned men. One of these 
occurred in your second letter. There you say, 
"Rev. E. S. Goodwin * * * say's, 
that Aristotle never uses axon as signifying eter- 
nity, but as denoting being, life, existence, with 
out denoting their duration." You have given me 
no reference in this case; therefore, I have noth- 
ing but your assertion. Whereas, Dr. Clarke 
affirms that Aristotle says aion does properly 
mean always being or eternity. Com. on Gen. 
xxi. 33. You have given names by the parcel, 
without any reference to their works; as, Homer, 
Hesiod, Eschylus, Finder, Hippocrates, Whitby, 
Grotius, Macknight, Hammond, Pearce, Light- 
r oot, Cappe, &c. One instance of this in a con- 
troversy might be endured, but a continual course 
cf this sort is intolerable ; and certainly does not 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 503 



merit the slightest attention. You insinuate that 
all the writers except Universalists belong to my 
church, and that you might as well quote Mur- 
ray, Winchester, Ballou, Balfour, Rayner, Stree- 
ter and Whittemore, as that 1 should quote 
Henry, Clarke, &c. Now sir, the fact is, I ne- 
ver quoted any author belonging to the church- 
that I am connected with, unless they and my- 
sslf be considered as members of the general 
church of Christ. But this is not the case with 
you, for you had recourse to the works of HGsea 
Ballou, who is known to be the mouthpiece of 
the Universalists. Now, it must be obvious that 
you were hard pushed when you were driven to 
use the works of such men as Ballou and Bal- 
four 3 and the editors of the Universalist Exposi-* 
tor. Besides, these men have led you into inex- 
tricable difficulties and errors. See, for instance, 
the unsupported assertion concerning the Dis- 
course on Hades, and the failure to prove that 
Universalism existed before the time of Origen. 
Your quoting the Ancient History of Univer- 
salism to prove that the doctrine in question had 
an existence before the days of Origen, is nothing 
buL the assertion of one of the Universalists of 
the present day. I want historical evidence of 
these matters, and not the unsupported asser- 
tions of self-interested men, for this is of no high- 
er authority than that of Mr. Skinner himself. 

I perceive by your Thirteenth letter, that you 
have entirely failed in establishing your position 
respecting the dates of the Targumr. You state 
f 'Kuinoel, I say, relies on Eichhorn as authority, 
and quotes the Targams as the work of the 3rd 
or 4th centurv." Now this quotation contains 
52 



504 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



two literar} 7 frauds, or falsehoods. For. first, Itu- 
inoel does not rely on Eichhorn as authority con- 
cerning the dates of the Targums at ail ; nor 
does he, second, quote the Targums as the Work 
of the 3rd or 4th century. But I will state what 
Kuinoel does say on this subject, and then it will 
he seen that he decidedly establishes my side of 
the question. Kuinoel in his prolegomena, gives 
us a dissertation on the Logos,, and in page 109 
he cites the Targums to show what were the 
Jews' opinion, on this subject, at the time of 
Christ. He then goes on to say, that admitting 
the Targums were (which he by no means ad- 
mits') not written till the second or third century, 
it made no difference; as the Jews were extreme- 
ly tenacious of their opinions, so that whatever 
sentiments or opinions they once held, they al- 
ways held. In a note, at the bottom of the page, 
he refers to Eichhorn as one who had offered 
some trifling reasons to show that the Targums 
were not written till the 3d or 4th century. — 
Hence Kuinoel is decidedly in favour of the no- 
tion that the Targums were written before Christ; 
at all events, that they contain the notions which 
the Jews always had. Consequently the Tar- 
gums prove that the Jews and our Saviour used 
Gehenna to signify endless n/e, in a future state. 
Furthermore, as you have referred to Kuinoel as 
being of high authority, I suppose yon will abide 
hy his decision concerning the meaning of the 
term Gehenna, in the New Testament. Then, 
if you will turn to his Exposition of Matth. v. 
22, (page 135,) you will find that/after remark- 
ing that it is derived from two words signifying 
the valley of the son of Hinnom, he affirms it 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



305 



signifies, in the New Testament, the place of 
everlasting damnation ! Again, on Matt. x. 28, 
(page 299) he says, apokteino means not only to 
deprive of iife, but to destroy or extirpate. There- 
fore he is decidedly against your sentiments on 
these three points of difference between us. 

Now as I have shown that you misrepresented 
this author, which is the only one I had access to, 
it is very likely this would be the case with all 
you have quoted, had I the opportunity of exam- 
ining them. 

Now having demonstrated the existence of 
endless misery, by the word Gehenna, any other 
discussion on the subject is unnecessary, as it is 
only a useless waste of time. I have shown by 
twelve authorities that the Targums were written 
before Christ. These Targums use the word Ge- 
henna to signify endless misery, and consequently, 
show how the Jews used the word; and our Lord 
being a Jew according to the flesh, and preach- 
ing to Jews must have used this word as they 
understood it, therefore, its meaning in the New 
Testament is definitely fixed. I cited twelve 
authorities to prove it signifies future punish- 
ment. No authority can be found to say it does 
not. Therefore the question is finally settled ; 
for, if it is not, there is no use in debating upon 
any subject whatever. 

It may be observed that I have made no at- 
tempt to reply to any of your positive proofs of 
Universalism, because all such proofs must be 
explained in accordance with the existence of 
endless misery ; that is, to harmonize with the 
existence of a fact which is demonstrated. 
Yours in the bonds of the gospel, 
53 Joseph M'Kee. 



306 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIOF. 



LETTER No. XIV. 

Baltimore, Jlpril 15th, 1S35. 
To Rev. Joseph McKee: 

Dear Sir — Your oft repeated as- 
sertions, that you have ^gained the point/ tf de- 
monstrated the eternity of misery/ ^overthrown 
Universalism,' and f unanswerably settled the 
question,' betray a sense of the weakness of your 
cause, and of the impossibility of sustaining- it by 
proofs that are even satisfactory to yourself. For 
if it were not so, you would be willing that your 
arguments should speak "for themselves. That 
such assertions may satisfy the ignorant, is pos- 
sible; but by all who read and judge for themsel- 
ves, they will be regarded as the piteous attempts 
of mortified pride and disappointed ambition, to 
conceal your defeat, and to keep up the appear^ 
ance of confidence and success. If it be not so, 
why do you try to prop up by other proofs, what 
you assert has been already unanswerably settled? 

Your question about garbled quotations, is en- 
tirely gratuitous, for you knew, that by these I 
meant, giving so much of an author's language as 
would suit your purpose, and make him speak 
what he never intended . The instances in which 
you did this, I have twice pointed out, and yet 
you have the hardihood to say, I have given no 
instance ! 

Your allusions to my criticisms on aion are like 
the faint breathings of expiring nature. Suppose 
I only considered six out of eleven cases where 
you said aim was endless, when not governed 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 307 



by els? This destro} T ed your argument, because 
that rested entirely on the idea, that it is oftener 
used in an endless than a limited sense. 

Your remarks on 2 John 2, are incorrect, be- 
cause the apostle was speaking of the truth abid- 
ing in Christians, and of their walking in it, in 
opposition to going after false doctrines, which 
snows that he simply meant, they would always 
walk in the truth. Thus the Psalmist says' 
(xl vm. 14,) 'This God is our God forever and 
ever, he will be our guide even unto death.' The 
circumstances under which aphihartos is used in 
1 Pet. i. 23. are entirely different from what 
they are in 1 Cor. xv. 52. In the latter case, it 
relates to the immortal state, and in the former, 
to the gospel, whi .was designed for the in- 
struction of man in tnl s world. 1 Johnii. 17, be- 
ing a contrast between the permanency of the 
word and things sensual, requires no illustration. 

You deny calling for the dates of Lexicons. 
Let the reader turn to letter No. 9, and he will 
see that in speaking of Lexicons, speaking too in 
reply to my charge respecting perverting their 
meaning, you say, tf in citing authorities, I wish, 
you to give both the date and place where the 
book was printed,' &c. Not a word m that letter 
is said respecting commentators ! 

You accuse me of giving commentators 'by the 
parcel' without referring to dates. The charge is 
wrong(— )in exery-instance I have said/see Com. 
in loc.J the same as you have done in quoting 
Henry, Clarke, and Wesley. Rev. E. S. Good 
win, I said, informs us, that Homer, Hesiod, &c. 
do not use axon in the endless sense, but to sig- 
nify spiritual existence. Could I then in refer- 



SOS 



THEOLOftCIAL DISCUSSION. 



ing thus to these men, give the dates of their- 
works? You did not give the date of Aristotle, 
when you told us what Clarke said of him. Such 
is your inconsistency. Goodwin lived in Sand- 
wich, Mass., and published his criticism Gn aion 
in the Christian Examiner. 

You deny quoting- frcm. your own commentators 
when both Wesley and Clarke were Methodists; 
and you falsely charge me with saying all I have 
quoted from are Methodists. Produce the place. 
You say too, I have been misled by Hosea Ballou, 
when I had not referred to his works. — 
Do you imagine that such measures will weaken 
the argument drawn from the fact, that my ap - 
plication of scripture is sustained by orthodox 
writers? As well might you attempt to silence 
'the noise of many waters.' 

Your remarks respecting H. Ballou 2d, who 
was the editor of the Expositor, and author of 
the Ancient History of Universalism, show your 
utter destitution of candor and fairness. I doubt 
whether you have read his history, and yet you 
denounce it as partial and incorrect. But all this 
you must do, or admit the antiquity of Univer- 
salism. When you have replied to what I have 
proved respecting the Discourse concerning Ha- 
des, it will be time to talk of my being hard 
pushed, for relying on the statements of H. Bal- 
lou 2d as published in the Expos, vol. n., No. 12. 

The arguments by which I established my 
positions respecting the Targums, drawn from 
Jahn, Eichhorn,Bertholdt, the first critics of the 
world, you meet by simply asserting, that they 
prove nothing. To this Sir, the reader must how 
in submission. The naked assertion of Rev. Jo- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 309 



iseph M'Kee,puts to flight the whole army of Ger- 
man critics! Keeping- in rememberance your 
quotation from Maclaine, I call for the language 
of Kuinoel, sustaining what you have said res 
pecting my misrepresenting his views. Charges 
of this nature,must be proved. But if I had even 
mistaken Kuinoel 's opinion, it would not materi- 
ally affect the argument; neither would it justify 
your ungenerous inference, that all my quota- 
tions from German critics are false ! Sooner 
than be tied to a cause, which requires such 
low and despicable means for support, 1 would 
scornfully throw it to the moles and bats. Kuin- 
oel's asseriion that the Targums contain the no- 
tions which the Jews always believed, is refuted 
by the facts of my last. Your dragging in his 
opinion about Gehenna and cqiokteino only shows, 
that you are determined to prop up by great 
names, what you cannot support by argument. 

You have quite a summary way of settling my 
positive proofs of Universalism; but Sir, as others 
may not admit that you have proved all you as- 
sert, I am induced to offer a few more arguments 
on this' subject. 

1 . The scriptures assert that God is infinitely 
good. David says, "God is good unto all, and his 
tender mercies are over all the works of his 
hands." AnApostle says, "God is love." Now 
you admit, that it is the disposition of goodness 
to communicate happiness — as we read "love 
worketh no ill—herein is love, not that we loved 
God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son; &c. 
God so loved the world, that he sent his Son," 
&c. In the infinity and nature of goodness then, 
we find an unanswerable argument against Cal- 
54 



310 TKEOLOCxICAL DISCUSSION. 



vinism, for if God be alike good to all, and good- 
ness works no ill, he certainly could decree no 
man to endless suffering, for this vv T ould be an in- 
finite evil. Buc is this any more certain, than 
that infinite goodness would provide means which 
would be effectual in saving all men? The good- 
ness of God, must not only be impartial, but in- 
finite in degree; and if it be infinite in this sense, 
it will as assuredly provide effectual means for 
the salvation of all, as it would be impartial in 
its plans. 

You say, a decree of reprobation, would prove 
God wanting! n goodness; but would it any more., 
than not providing effectual means for the salva- 
tion of all? Surely not; for what a being desires, 
he always seeks to accomplish, and his efforts to 
accomplish it, are always in proportion to the 
strength of his desire. Therefore as God has an in- 
finite desire to save all, his plans will correspond 
with this. Hence the common Methodist senti- 
ment, that God gave man an agency, which he 
knew would prove his endless ruin, is as directly 
at war with goodness, as the old Calvinistic 
notion of reprobation; because it would be a vol- 
untary act against the eternal interest of man ; 
and thus prove, that God did not desire the hap- 
piness of all. The same may be said of the 
Methodist scheme of salvation ; it does not 
correspond with God's infinite desire to save all ; 
it is wanting in that efficiency which character- 
ises the plans of an Almighty Being. 

This reasoning is fully sustained by Scripture. 
Paul, speaking of his conversion says : f Whereof 
I was made a minister, according to the gift of 
the grace of God, given unto me by the effectual 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 311 



working of his power." Had this grace been 
wanting in power, the purpose of God might ne- 
ver have been accomplished. Grace therefore, is 
not only impartial, but it is armed with a power 
equal to its benevolent designs. 

2. Let us consider this subject in connexion 
with the goodness j wisdom, and power of God. 
Having proved his goodness, we need only say, 
tf His understanding is infinite;' tf all things are na- 
ked and open before him,' "Known unto God 
are all Ids works, from the beginning of the 
world :" "To Abraham he saitli, I am the Al- 
mighty God. 1 ' As cur limits forbid numerous 
quotations, we wil confine our remarks to Isai. 
xxv. 6, 7, 8, in connexion with these three at- 
tributes of God. The prophet says : "In this 
mountain shall the Lord of hosts make unto all 
people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on 
the lees; of fat things full of marrow, of wines on' 
the lees well refined." Respecting the number 
for which this feast is prepared, there can be no 
doubt — it is for all people. Nothing less could be 
expected from infinite goodness. Calvinism, in 
the light of this, must hide its head in shame 
and confusion. But does not this text as fully 
teach, that all will partake of the feast, as it 
does, that it was prepared for all? The prophet 
continues : "And he will destroy in this moun- 
tain the face of the covering cast over all people, 
and the vail that is spread over all nations. He 
will swaMoiv up death in victory, and the Lord 
God will wipe away tears from off all faces; and 
the rebuke of his people shall he take away from 
off all the earth; for the Lord hath spoken it." — 
Now how can these words be true, without all 
54* 



812 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



being brought to a participation of grace? The 
vail of ignorance is to be taken away, death de- 
stroyed, and tears wiped from all faces. This is 
what we should expect from infinite wisdom and 
power, for if G..d be i:innitely~wise, he would 
form a perfect plan to accomplish his desires, and 
if he be infinitely powerful, he will carry that 
plan into complete execution. Therefore, if you 
deny Universalism, you must either say, God 
can save all but w T ill not, or would but cannot, or 
can and will. If you say the first, you deny his 
goodness, the second, you deny his wisdom or 
power ; but if the third, you make him a perfect 
Being, worthy the unreserved confidence and 
un mingled praise of a world. 

This reasoning fully justifies the expressive 
figures used by the prophet — a feast of fat tilings 
for all pecple — swallow up death in victory — 
wipe away tears from all faces! How full of 
meaning! It has been said, that the imagination 
of the poet, never conceived a more beautiful fi- 
gure, than the dove returning to Ararat with the 
olive-brach, over the still, solitary, measureless, 
waters, gazing down upon her own shadow, and 
listening to the music caused by her own wing. 
But if this exceeds in beauty the figures of the 
prophet, those exceed this in interest and import- 
ance ; for while one teaches that the wide waste 
of water was retiring from the earth, the others 
teach that the floods of sorrow shall retire from 
the world, sin and death be destroyed, and all 
men sit down in the city of the living God, to 
feast forever on the riches of immortal grace. 

I am, &c Otis A. Skinner. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



SIS 



LETTER No. XV. 

Baltimore, April 26, 1835. 
To i?et>. Otis A. Skinner 

Dear Sir, — I shall in the CDUTse of this letter, 
cod fine myself t o an examination of your positive 
proofs of the truth of Universal ism, not because 



they contain any thing of a subtantial 
nature, but because the superficial reader mio-ht 
think thmn unreasonable if I were to pass them 
unnoticed. 



What you have said, in Letter eleven, fo vin- 
dicate your exposition of the phrase "As in 
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be 
made alive," is so trifling that I consider it a sur- 
rendering of the argument drawn from that 
source. The most careless reader must see,that 
Patii was speaking of the temporal death of 
man kind in consequence of the fall of Adam and 
their resurrection at the last day in consequence 
of the atonement of Christ, and not concerning 
either happiness or misery in a future state. 

You endeavour to draw an argument from 
Rom.viii. 19 — -2 2. in favor of the" final happi- 
ness of all mankind, and say , "Here the word 
rendered creature and creation is the same 
(ktisis) and consequently all, (that is the whole 
-creation) who are subject to vanity, are finally 
to be deliverer 1 into the glorious libert) 7- ot the 
children of God." As this is the principal text, 
among all which you have quoted to prove the 
final restoration of all men, that carries with it 
the appearance of argument, I shall give it ; a 
mature consideration. It appears that the chief 



314 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



stress is laid upon the signification of the word 
kiisis- The phrase pasa kiisis, "every crea- 
ture/ 1 is used ^ye times only in the N. Testa- 
ment. In Mark xvi. 15. our Saviour said to 
bis apostles "Go ye into all the world and 
preach the Gospel to every creature (pase te 
ktisei) It is conceded,, that in this text, the phrase 
means aU tnankind^and neither more nor less. In 
Col. i. 15. we read that Jesus is/' the first born 
of every ci eaiiire (pases ktiseos.} It is warmly 
disputed whether the phrase here refers to the 
new creation in the churchy the creation of all 
terrestrial things at the beginning of the world, 
or the creation of all inteliigencies in the uni- 
verse both human and angelic. I incline to the 
last opinion j for Christ is as much the firstborn 
of angels as of me n, inasmuch as he is far supe- 
rior to both; therefore, the phrase in this text 
means more than all mankind. In Col. i. 23;. 
we read "The Gospel which was preached to 
every creature (en passe te ktisei) under heaven. 
As it would be impossible to believe the gospel 
was preached, by a few men, in the days of the 
apostles, to every human being on the whole 
earth, so we must believe the phrase in this 
text, has a limited signification, and means only 
a part of the human race. 1 Peter II. 13, the 
phrase passa anthr opine ktisei is rendered, 
'every ordinance of man," but should be "every 
human creature." That pasa ktisis does not al- 
ways mean all mankind, and neither more nor 
less, is manifest. 1 From the use of the adjective 
"anthropine human, in this text which confines 
the meaning to mankind to the exclusion of 
animals and angels. 2 From the absurdity and 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



315 



impossibility of obeying every human being on 
the face of the globe. No man will say^ that ei- 
ther reason or revelation requires every chris- 
tian to be subject to every human being whether 
woman, man, child , tyrant, king, &c Conse- 
quently the phrase "every human creature' 
must signify the magistrates or proper rulers or 
their laws and institutions and not all mankind. 
Now if the phrase in question means more than 
all mankind in Col. i. 15, and less than all man- 
kind in Co] i.25, in Pet. ii. 13 as it unquestiona- 
bly does,it may mean either more or less than all 
mankind in Rom. viii. 22, unless there is some- 
thing else in the sentence to define its signifi- 
cation besides the necessary import of the word. 
That the phrase does not mean all mankind, is 
evident by the language of the epistle, in the 
23d verse, where he speaks of himself and those 
to whom he^wrote as not being included in the 
meaning of the phrase ee whole creation," saying 
"And not only they (the whole creation) but 
ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the 
Spirit," &c. The word ktisis, in these verses, 
.has been supposed by Wesley, and Henry to sig- 
nify the brute creation; others, among whom are 
the Universalists, think it means all mankind; 
while Clarke, Locke, and many other critics 
confine it to the Gentile world, and this last 
signification I think to be the only one that con 
veys the apostle's meaning. 

The word ktisis creature without pasa occurs 
14 times only in the N. Testament and 5 
times with pasa as cited above, making in all 
nineteen times. It does not -appear to me that 
ktisis alone ever means all mankind in theN. 



315 



THEOLOGIC A L DISCUSS J ON 



Testament. Sometimes it signifies the regen- 
eration of the heart by the spirit of God, as in 
2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15 Sometimes it signifies 
an earthly building. Heb. ix. 1 1 . The following 
are the fourteen places where the w T ord occurs, 
which the reader may consult at a convenient 
time, and judge for himself. Mark. x. 6; xiii. 
19; Rom. 1. 20, £5; viii. 19,20,21, 39; 2 Cor. 
v. 17; Gal. vi. 15; Heb. iv.13, ix. 11; 2 Pet. iii 
4; Rev. iii. 14. 

The word ktisis occurs only three times in the 
Septuagint version of the old Testament. In 
2 Chron. xiv. 15. it is translated cattle; Ezra 
viii. 21, it is rendered substance, and in PsaL 
civ. 24, it is translated riches. 

Ktisis occurs in the Apochrypha in the nine 
following places only, and in no instance signi- 
fies all mankind, and neither more nor less: Ju- 
dith ix. 12; xvi. 14; Wis. ii. 6; v. 17; xvi. 24; 
xix. 6; Ezel. xvi. 17; xliii. 25; xlix. 16. The 
general use which is made of this word, in the 
New Testament, in the Septuagint, and in the 
Apocrypha, clearly shews, that its signification is 
various, and must be determined by the construc- 
tion of the sentence and sense of the passage 
where it occurs. Therefore Universalism can 
claim no support whatever from the signification 
of ktisis. 

You appear to think the phrase "all things'' in 
Eph. I. 10, must mean all mankind, and there- 
fore Universalism must be true. But if we ex- 
amine the places where the original word (pas) 
is used, the fallacy of your argument will be ma- 
nifest .. The word (ta panto) "all things" may 
not mean all mankind, for we read, (Matt. viii. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 317 



3S,) "And they that kept them (the swine) fled* 
and told everything" (panta;) certainly not ev- 
ery human being-. "Ail things (pant'ri) that of*„ 
fend/' Matt. xiii. 41. Surely all mankind do 
not offend, nor as such will be plucked out of' 
Christ's kingdom." "Ml things (panta,) are 
ready, come to the marriage," Matt. xxii, 4: not 
all human beings certainly. "Ml things (panto) 
are possible to him that believeth." Mark. ix. 
23. "With God all things (panta) are possible." 
Mark ix. 27. "Martha^ Martha, thou art trou- 
bled about many things," (panta.) Luke x. 41. 
"When he is come^ he will tell us all things," 
(panta.) John iv. 25. "See a man which told 
me all things," (panta.) John iv.27. "He shall 
teach you all things, (panta.) John xiv. 26. — 
"I perceive that in all things (panta) ye are too 
superstitious." Acts xvii. 22. From these cita- 
tions it is evident that the phrase ie all things" is 
so far from proving "indisputably" your position, 
that it proves nothing at all. Nor am I eertain, 
that this phrase in the New Testament ever 
means all mankind, and neither more nor less; so 
far is it from proving that all mankind shall be 
finally restored. 

In your argument on Heb. ii. 10 ? you say — ■ 
"The word here rendered many, is pottci, and 
signifies, according to Parkhurst, the 'whole bulk 
of mankind,' and is equivalent to pantas anthro- 
pons, (all men) in Rom. v. 12." To this I reply, 
Although you, in common with other Universal- 
ists, wish to make the world believe pcllci means 
all mankind, I am certain that its signification is 
variable and must be determined by the scope 
and general design of the passage where it occurs, 



318 



THEOLOGICAL DISCISSION. 



This will be evident by the following quotations: 
"Wide ; is the gate and broad is the way that 
lea'deth to destruction, and many (polloi) there 
be, which go in thereat," Matth. vii. 13. It will 
not be pretended thai all mankind will go to de- 
struction. "They brought unto him many (pot- 
ions) that were possessed with devils." Matt, 
viii. 16. No one will affirm that all mankind 
were possessed with devils, and 1 were brought to 
our Lord, in the days of his flesh, to have them 
cast out. "And many (polloi) shall come in my 
name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive 
many (pollous.) Matt. xxiv. 5: It would be ab- 
surd to say, all men shall come and deceive all 
men; therefore pollous is limited here. "And 
many (polloi) were there." Matt. xvii. 55. Cer- 
tainly not all the women in the world, "And 
straightway many (polloi) were gathered toge- 
ther." Mark ii. 2. Not aft mankind. "Insomuch 
that many (pollous) said he is dead." Mark ix e 
26. All mankind did not say he was dead, — 
"Many (polloi) of the Jews, and religious prose- 
lytes followed Paul." Acts xiii. 42. All the hu- 
man family did not follow Paul. From these 
quotations it is manifest that (polloi) seldom, if 
ever, means all mankind; consequently, it is no 
proof whatever of the final restoration of all man- 
Mud. 

The duty enjoined in 1 Tim.ii. 1 — 7 to offer 
up prayers and supplication for all the human 
race, is no proof whatever of the doctrine of 
Universalism, but it merely shews that all are 
in a state of probation, and may possibly be eter- 
nally saved. Of like import is that doctrine 
which teaches that Christ died for all mankind. 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 819 

Provision is made in. the economy of grace for 
the salvation of all mankind, consequently,, all 
who believe and obey shall be eternally saved, 
v Your's, &c- 

Joseph M'Kee. 



LETTER No. XV. 

i .Baltimore, i^pril 29, 1835. 
To Rev* Joseph M'Kee: 

Dear Sir— I did expect, as you were 
stating objections to, and examining- the claims of 
Universalism, that you would consider the argu- 
ments by which it is supported. As yet you 
have not dared to approach these; and even the 
few which I have adduced, are passed in silence, 
or with the remark that they war with the 
threatnings, or that they are too trifling for a re- 
ply, or that they prove nothing; or else the whole 
is turned off by a round-about criticism, showing 
how many times a particular word is used, &c. 
all of which has little or nothing to do with the 
subject. Thus in your whole letter before me, 
you only attempt a reply to three of my proof 
texts. The rest are disposed of by mere asser- 
tions ! Such is the case with 1 Cor. xv.; 1 Tim. 
i. 1 — 7. I have only therefore to consider Rom. 
viii. 19—22; Eph. i. 9; and Heb. ii. 10. 

1. Rom viii. 19 — '22. As you admit that pasa 
ktisis, twice signifies the whole creation, out of 
the five times in which it is used, it is only re- 
quisite to observe, 1. That the apostle here 
uses it, to signify all who were made subject to 
-vanity. "For (ver. 20) the creature (kiisis) was 



\ 



320 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



made subject to vanity." Now as all were thus 
made, he must h£ve referred to the whole world. 
2. The same number which were made subject to 
vanit) r , are to be delivered: ^Because (ver. 21,) 
the creature (ktisis) itself shall be delivered from 
the bondage of corruption, &c. 3. What he ex- 
presses in theso verses, by ktisis, in verse 22 he 
expresses by pasa e ktis is, (whole creation.) The 
whole creation groaneth &c Now as ail were 
made subject to vanity, as all were subjected in 
hope, and as all groaned and travailed in pain, 
the apostle must have referred to all men. This 
is farther evident from the manner, in which he 
introduces the phrase, - ( whole creation." Speak- 
ing to Christians, — christians who were con- 
verts from Judaism, he says, 6i \ reckon that the 
sufferings of this present state are not worthy to 
be compared with the glory which shall be re- 
vealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the 
creature (ktisis) waiteth for the manifestation 
of the sons of God." Now if by the creature 
{ktisis) he meant the Gentiles, how could their 
"earnest expectation," be proof of the future 
glory of Hebrew Christians? This inference 
of the apostle therefore, shows, that by creature, 
creation, whole creation^ he meant mankind in 
their state of vanity. Their earnest expectation 
in this state, their being subjected in hope, 
and it being ordained, that they should be deliv- 
ered from this bondage of corruption, served to 
strengthen the apostle's belief in the coming 
glory of christians; for he saw clearly through the 
Dhine plan, and how all the evils they were 
suffering would terminate in good. Hence he 
says, not only they — the creation in its sinful 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION S2I 



state — but we, believers, the first fruits of the 
spirit, even we groan within ourselves, though 
in a measure redeemed from the vanity and 
bondage in which we have been — being a part of 
this creation which was made subject to vanity, 
we also groan within ourselves. Thus do we see 
that Paul is speaking of all men, and teaching- 
their final deliverance from the bondage of cor- 
ruption, into the glorious liberty of the children 
of God. This is the deliverance of the whole 
creation, (pasa ktisis.) Amen! Glory to God! 

Your criticism on all things fpanta) re- 
futes your own doctrine, for in every case you 
have given, it means i\V ofthe thing spoken of. 
Thus they cc told every thing that had been 
said," "gather out of his kingdom all things 
that offend/ 5 "come for all things are ready." 
Now according to your own criticism, the 
phrase means all of the things spoken of, and 
as in my proof texts, it is appliea to men, it 
must mean all men. Therefore all men will 
be saved. You seem to have been aware ofthe 
bearing of your criticism, for you seek to evade 
it by saying, "those who fed swine did not tell 
the matter to every human being/' when pan- 
ta (all things) is applied to what was said, and 
not to whom it was said. Besides you do gross 
violence to your own explanation of the par- 
able of the wheat and tares, for you say it is a 
representation of the final separation between 
the good and bad. Will not all that are bad 
be at the judgment cast out? I apply the text 
to the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore in- 
itead of weakening, you have established my 



822 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 

arguments, ;and I almost suspect that such was 
your intention. 

J admit that pollous rendered many in Ileb. 
ii. 10. must be "interpreted according to the 
scope and general design of the passage where 
it occurs. 5 ' This is the rule by which 1 was 
guided to the conclusion, that in Heb. ii. 10. it 
means all the world. Parkhurst says, this is 
its meaning here. The connexion proves that 
he is right. That it is sometimes used in a lim- 
ited sense, none deny; and there is scarcely a 
word expressing number or duration but what 
is. Hence your criticism on pollous does not 
affect my argument,for you have not attempted 
to prove, that the scope of the subject limits it 
in Heb. ii. 10. 

Having offered all that is requisite for a full 
reply to your letter, I w T ill call your attention to 
some further proof in defence of Universalism. 

1. God's premises. 'Behold the days come, 
saith the Lord, when I will make a new cove- 
nant with the house of Israel and the house of 
of Judah; not according to the covenant that I 
made with their fathers * * * * For this is the 
covenant that I will make. * # * I will put 
my laws into their mind, and write them in their 
hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they 
shall be to me a people; and they shall not teach 
every man his neighbour and every man his bro- 
ther, saying, Know ye the Lord, for all shall 
know me from the least unto the greatest. For 
I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and 
their sins and iniquities will I remember no 
more." Heb. viii. 8 — 12. 

This being a promise of the New Covenant, I 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 823 

give it as a specimen of what God has promised, 
and of the manner in which he has promised. — 
1. he has promised that a knowledge of him 
shall be universal. This agrees with Isaiah's de- 
claration, that the vail of ignorance shall be ta- 
ken from ail people. 2 He has promised that he 
will be merciful to the unrighteousness of those 
embraced in the New Covenant, (which is all,) 
and that he will remember their sins and iniqui- 
ties no more. But you say, he will remember 
them endlessly, and punish their authors with 
vindictive vengeance! 

To learn the manner in which God has pro- 
mised these infinite blessings, we have only to 
observe the comparison made between the new 
and old covenant. The old was, if ye will do, 
J will do. But this proved faulty. The New 
is unlike this. That reads, I will write my laws 
in their heats; I will be to them a God; and they 
shall be to me a people, 1 will be merciful. * * 
I will remember their sins no more. 

But according to Methodism, the promise of 
the new Covenant is like the old — altogether 
conditional; but if so, like the old it would be 
faulty, and we should have occasion for a third 
But the new is a more excellent ministry, found- 
ed upon better promises — as much better as the 
promise of God, is better than the pnomise of 
man. 

2. God's Oath. God has not only promised 
the salvation of all, but he has confirmed his 
promise by an oath', and an oath, says Paul, for 
confirmation, is an end of all strife. Therefore 
if I can give the oath of God, it is enough. 
God said "by myself have I sworn * # that thy 
seed shall possess the gate of his enemy, * * * 
56 



5 24 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



that in thy seed shall all the nations of the eartfo 
be blessed." Gen. xxii: 16—38. Paul on com- 
menting on this says "When Gcd made promise 
to Abraham, because he could swear by no great- 
er, he sware by himself." Heb. \i: 14. He also 
says, "God willing more abundantly to show un- 
to the heirs of promise the mmutability of his 
counsel confirmed it by an ^ath." Heb. vi: 17. 
Such being the nature of an oath, there can be 
no question respecting the fulfilment of the 
promise to Abraham. 

We enquire therefore, 1. how many does it 
embrace? The answer is all nations. Not some 
of all nations, but all nations. This univer- 
sality is indicated by the figures "stars in the 
heavens," and "sands upon the sea shore." Pe- 
ter's method of alluding to it, proves it univer- 
sal — c Ye are the children of the prophets, and 
of the covenant which God made with our fa- 
thers saying, In thy seed shall all the kindreds 
of the earth be blessed.' There can be no ques- 
tion then respecting the universality of the 
promise to Abraham 

2. What was promised? 1. That Christ 
should possess the gate of his enemy? Gate 
was anciently used to signify a very strong place; 
it was where the people sat to execute justice. 
Hence the figure, "and the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it." To possess the gate of 
an enemy therefore, is to have that enemy in 
complete subjection to our powder. Such a pas- 
session will Christ finally have — his enemies 
will be made his footstool — they will be sub- 
jected — they will be reconciled. 2. In thy seed 
shall all nations be blessed. What can this bles- 
sing be? Not any temporal advantage connected 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, S25 



with the Gospel on earth, for not a fourth part 
of the world know any thing concerning it. 
Then it must be the blessing of life and glory 
beyond the grave. — Hence Christ is called the 
"salvation of God to the ends of the earth," and 
the ' Saviour of the world., For the faithful 
fulfilment of his promise, we have the oath of 
Jehovah. Have you the oath of God in favour 
of endless misery? If not partialism must fall. 

3. GocVs will. "Who will have all men to be 
saved and come unto aklowledge of the truth." 
1 Tim. ii: 4, see also Eph.i: 9, 10. To realize 
the full force of this language, let us consider 
that "God w r orks all things after the counsel of 
his ow r n will, that he does his pleasure in the ar- 
mies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of 
the earth." In making man, in giving him pow r - 
ers, laws and privileges, he w T as guided by this 
will, which is in accordance wdth the eternal in- 
terests of all men. Now such being the case, 
how could God, consistently with his will, so 
situate man as to expose him to endless death? — 
This would not be according to the counsel of 
his owrn will, for he wills the salvation of all. — 
Hence God cannot have exposed us to endless 
misery. 

This idea is strengthened by the fact, that the 
truth is consonant to the salvation of all. "Who 
will have all men to be saved , and come unto a 
knowledge of the truth." Now if the truth 
were not consonant to the salvation of all; or if 
it were tiue, that a part are to be saved, and a 
part lost, then all could come to knowledge of 
the truth, but only a part would be ssved. — 
Hence God willing the salvation of all, and do- 
ing all things according to the counsel of his own 



3*6 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



will, has ordained universal savation; and there- 
fore, that is immutable and everlasting truth. — . 
This all can know, and be saved. 

4. God's decree. Ci l will declare the decree 
* * Ask of me and I will give thee, the heathen 
for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of 
the earth for thy possession," Here is what 
the infinite Jehovah has decreed; not offered, net 
piovided, but decreed though Jesus Christ. — 
The heathen and the uttermost parts of the earth 
decreed to salvation! A more expressive term 
could not be used. 

Where is Calvinism in the light of this testi- 
mony? Where too is Methodism, which denies 
the existence of such a decree? They both 
vanish, and among the thousand errors, that 
have existed on]y in the disordered imaginations 
of men. This testimony of David coincides 
with what Paul says in Heb. 1.2. "Whom he 
hath appointed heir of all things." This word 
appointed is the same as decreed. — Thus we 
read; — He appointed other seventy — I will ap- 
point to you the kingdom, as my Father hath 
appointed a kingdom to me. According then to 
the scriptural use of the word appointed, it 
shows the positive certainty of Christ being heir 
of all things. Something more must be intend- 
ed than that means are provided for this, that all 
can be saved, that there is grace sufficient for all. 
His being appointed, shows that ail the perfec- 
tions of the Father and Son are pledged for the 
execution of the work; and that the decree of 
Heaven has gone forth, declaring that Jesus 
shall be heir of all. 

I am, &c, 

Otis A. Skinner, 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



5S7 



LETTER XVI. 

Easton Md. May 24, 18S5. 
To Rev. Otis A. Skinner: 

Bear Sir: — I have just read your fifteenth let- 
ter, and find nothing- in it, that requires either a 
careful or a critical reply. That part of it which 
relates to my fifteenth communication, needs no 
investigation. The new proofs as you suppose 
them to be, of the final salvation of all men, re- 
quire some notice, not because they contain any 
real proof, but because the unthinking- reader, 
mightsuppose them to be of some importance, were 
I to pass them by, in total silence. 

Your new proofs are taken from the promise, 
oath, ivill, and decree of God. All these things 
may appear very plausible to some persons; how- 
ever, I shall attend to them in order. 

1. The promises of God. The promises of the 
Most High, which are made to the human race, 
may be variously classified. They relate to time 
and eternity, to the body and to the soul, and 
they are conditional and unconditional in their 
nature, and with respect to their accomplishment. 
Some of the promises of temporal good are abso- 
lutely unconditional: as the promise of summer 
and winter, seed-time and harvest, the fertilizing 
showers of rain, and all the vegetable produc- 
tions of the earth, for the use of man: all these 
things are given, in a certain sense, irrespective 
of any condition on the part of man. But, the 
promise of full barns and store-houses, great wealth 
and affluence, &c. are conditional, and depend, 
in a great measure, upon our diligence and un- 
wearied perseverance in the pursuits of industry 
and domestic economy, "if ye be willing and 
obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land." 



328 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



•'The hand of the diligent maketh rich." Some 
of the promises of spiritual good are absolutely 
unconditional, as they are fulfilled without any 
previous condition on the part of man whatever. 
Of this class are the promise of a Saviour coming 
into the world to be an expiatory' sacrifice for all 
sin — the promise of the Holy Spirit to convince 
the world of sin — the promise of the means of 
grace, and the establishment of gcspel ordinan- 
ces in the Christian church — the promise of a 
great diffusion of divine knowledge over the face 
of the earth. While all these general promises 
may be regarded as emanating unconditionally 
from the unbounded goodness and benevolence oi 
God, it is equally certain, that a great number of 
the promises of spiritual good are conditional, 
depending on something which must be perform- 
ed by the creature; for instance, the promises of 
the pardon of sin, and the purification of the heart 
by the Spirit of God, are suspended upon the con- 
dition of repentance, towards God, and faith in 
the Lord Jesus Christ, which must be performed 
by the creature through divine aid, otherwise the 
promises never will be fulfilled. The promise of 
eternal life is suspended upon the condition, that 
we accept of the overtures of divine mercy, as 
propounded in the gospel, and manifest this ac- 
ceptance by faithfully discharging the duties we 
owe to God, to our neighbour, and to ourselves. 
The threatening of eternal misery, is suspended 
upon the condition, that we reject the gospel of 
Christ, and live in the violation of the laws of 
God; on all such, the horror and wrath of the 
Almighty shall be poured out without mixture, 
and without end, as to its duration. That the 
promises of God, in relation to individual happi- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



329 



ness are contingent, and net absolutely certain, 
but depend upon contingent circumstances connec 
ted with the volition of the human will, is mani- 
fest from the sacred Scriptures. Take, for in- 
stance, the declaration of the Almighty, himself, 
where, in speaking of the consequence of the 
Jews transgressing his law, he says," Ye shall 
know my breach of promise" Num. xiv. 34. 
if the promises of eternal life were unconditional, 
why did the Apostle Paul caution the Hebrew 
converts to "take heed lest a promise, being left 
them of entering into his (God's) rest, any of 
them, should seem to come short of it." Heb. 
iv. 1. These scriptures prove indisputably, that 
the promises made to individuals, concerning fu- 
ture happiness, are all conditional. If this were 
not so, there is no possible use for a day of judg- 
ment; but there is a day of judgment appointed, 
in which the secrets cf all hearts, will be made 
manifest, and the hidden things of darkness, 
brought to light, and every man receive a reward 
or punishment according to the deeds done in the 
body. Until you can prove that all the promi- 
ses of God are unconditional in their fulfilment, 
it is vain, to adduce them in proof of the final 
salvation of all men; but this you never can do, 
while the bible is taken as a standard of appeal in 
these matters. 

2. The oath cf God. The oath of the Almigh- 
ty is of the same force and meaning with that of 
his word; the former may be better calculated to 
make an impression on the human heart, than 
the latter, while they are both equally obligatory 
on the faithfulness of God, as it regards their 
accomplishment. The oath which God swore to 
Abraham, had respect to the Messiah, and the 
57* 



§30 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



'prosperity of his kingdom and government;, 
which were to emanate from the offspring of that 
Patriarch, as it regards the flesh. This oath was 
literally and actually fulfilled in the coming of 
Christ, the spread of the gospel, and the innu- 
merable multitudes, who were regenerated in 
Gheart, and reformed in life by the grace of God*. 
The oath of God, recorded in the ex. the Psalm, 
and quoted by St. Paul in Heb. vii. 21, concern- 
ing the priesthood of Christ, is similar in mean- 
ing, with that concerning Abraham, inasmuch,, 
as they both relate to the same subject with some- 
little difference, the former respects the Messiah, 
and his kingdom, the latter, the priesthood of 
Christ, and the success of his ministerial labours. 
I can see no proof in all this, of the total extinc- 
tion of human misery. You ask me "have I the 
oath of God in favour of endless misery?" To 
this I answer unhesitatingly — I have. If you will 
open your bible and turn to Psal. xcv. 1 1 . you wilj_ 
find that the Jews tempted God, and grieved his 
Spirit for the space of forty years in the wilder- 
ness; the consequence of which was, he swore in 
his wrath , they should not enter into his rest. You 
will probably say, this was a worldly rest, the 
land of Canaan, and not the happiness of the 
saints, in a future state. To this objection, I an- 
swer, we have an infallible commentator on the 
passage. St. Paul, applies it to the future 
state. In Heb. iii. 3. the apostle in addressing, 
believers, warns them of the awful effects of un- 
belief, and quotes Psal. ex . 1 1 . and applies the pas- 
sage concerning the land of Canaan, as a type of 
the heavenly blessedness. Then, if the sense of 
the Apostle is not this, that God has sworn in 
iiis wrath that unbelievers shall never enter into* 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



331 



eternal life, I confess, T do not understand what 
he means. If then, we have the oath of God, to 
assure us, that unbelievers, shall not enter the 
heavenly felicity , it clearly follows, we have his 
oath, in favour of endless misery. 

3. The will of God. The will of the eternal 
Being, as it stands unconnected with the moral 
actions of his creatures, in relation to his own 
works and designs, must, undoubtedly, be con- 
sidered as absolute, and infinitely beyond the con- 
trol of future contingencies. That it is the will 
of God that "all men should be saved" — "be 
sanctified," and ff come to the knowledge of the 
truth," is manifest, both from the Scripture and 
his benevolent nature. But that his will, in these 
respects, is not accomplished, is also manifest, 
hoth from Scripture and woful experience. The 
will of God in relation to the morality of his 
people, and its consequences, is contingent, or 
depending on contingent circumstances, respecting 
its accomplishments; otherwise, the freedom of 
the will is destroyed, and with it, all distinction 
between sin and virtue, as there can be no sin in 
the world, if the human will is not free. That 
some things happen, which are contrary to the 
will of God, none can deny. To illustrate this, 
it may be remarked, that the assassinations 12nd 
murders that frequently happen, cannot be in ac- 
cordance with the will of God, because he has 
expressly said "thou shalt not kill." If, then, 
the temporal life of a man may be taken away, 
contrary to the will of God, why not the spiri- 
tual and eternal life? 

4. The decree of God. "The decrees of God" 
is a phrase that does not occur in the Scriptures* 
The decree mentioned in the second Psalm, 



332 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



not called the decree of God; nor am I certain, it 
has any relation to mankind at all, but merely to 
the appointment of Christ, to the office of Medi- 
ator. He lLust be very sharp sighted indeed, 
that can see an} T thing in this Psalm, to favour 
the doctrine of Universalism. I confess it is too 
obscure for me to detect it. Christ being heir of 
all things, as mentioned in Heb. I. furirshes no 
proof of the final restoration of the damned. 
Christ may be said to be heir of all things. — 1. 
Because he created all things Col. I. 14 — 16. 
2- Because the Father appointed him to be the 
heir of all things. Heb. I. -2. 3. Because he has 
laid down his life to purchase all things for his 
church, Heb. II. 9. The phrase "all things" has 
several significations, as ma) T be seen in my' last 
letter, consequently it is, in itself, no proof of 
Universalism. The unchangeable decree, or* de- 
termination of God is, that the wicked shall be 
punished and the righteous rewarded; but no de- 
cree can be found in the Scriptures, to say all 
mankind shall infallibly obtain everlasting felicity. 

As this is the concluding letter on the subject 
of endless misery, I now propose to discuss witn 
you at some future opportunity, through the 
columns of the "Pioneer," all the errcrs of the 
Universalists. Most of these dangerous doc- 
trines have been kept behind the scenery,so that 
the public are little acquainted, either with them 
or their dangerous tendency. The following 
doctrines aredenied by most Universalists: — 

1. The fall of man, or human depravity. l 2. 
The doctrine of the Trinity. 3. The Divinity 
of Christ, the divinity and personality of the 
Holy Spirit. 4. The vicarious sacrifice of 
Christ. 5. The regeneration of the human 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 833 



heart by the Spirit of God. 6. The existence of 
devils, and 7. The eternity of hell's torments. 

Having concluded the discussion on the sub- 
ject of future misery, and having entered into 
some engagements that will occupy all my time 
for the present, I hope to discuss, in the course of 
a fewmonths, perhaps weeks, the six remaining 
points of difference, between your creed and 
mine, if, indeed, you do differ with me upon 
each of the particulars already mentioned. In 
the mean time, 1 wish to assure you ,that I am 
your sincere friend and brother in the gospel o 
Jesus Christ, our common Saviour. 

Joseph M'Kee 

LETTER No. XVI. 

Baltimore, May 2.7th, 1835. 
To Rev. Joseph M'Kee: 

Dear Sir — In letter No. 14 you charge me 
with two literary frauds or falsehoods, for saying, 
that "Kuinoel relies on Eichhorn as authority., 
and quotes the Targums as the work of the 3d 
or 4th century." And in proof of this charge, 
you say, "first, Kuinoel does not rely on Eich- 
"horn as authority concerning the dates of the 
"Targums at all, nor does he, second, quote the 
"Targums as the work of the 3d or 4th century. 
"But I will state what Kuinoel does say on this 
"subject,and then it will be seen,that he decided- 
ly establishes my side of the question. Kuino- 
„el in his prolegomena.gives us a dissertation on 
"the Logos, and in page 109 he cites the Tar- 
"gums to show what were the Jews' opinion 
"upon this subject at the time of Christ. He then 
"goes on to say, that admitting the Targums 
^'were (which he by no means admits) not writ- 



334 THEOLOGICAL DISCr3SlO!T, 



"ten till the second or third century, it made no 
"diffeience, as the Jews were extremely tena- 
cious of their opinions, so that whatever senti- 
"merits or opinions they once held, they always 
"held. In a note, at the bottom of the page, he 
"refers to Eichhorn as one who had offered 
"some trilling reasons to show .that the Targums 
"were not written till the Sd or 4th century. 
"Hence Kuinoel is decidedly in favour of the 110- 
"tion that the Targums were written before 
"Christ; at all events, that they contain the no- 
"tions which the Jews always had. 

In reply to this, I merely called for proof, to 
sustain your charges. But as this call has not 
been answered, and as you have concluded the 
discussion, it becomes requisite for me to speak 
in self defence. I will therefore, give a literal 
translation of the passage in Kuinoel, together 
with his note, both of which have been re- 
ferred to. Let it be observed, that Kuinoel 
had been speaking of the Jewish opinion, in the 
time of Christ, concerning the Logos. Now 
for the passage and note in question: 

"That this was the opinion of the Jews of that 
"age maybe proved by many passages of the Chal- 
"dee versions. [i. e. Targumsjwhich,even if they 
"are of a much later age 3 ~may nevertheless, be 
, .properly used for ascertaining the sentiments 
"of the earlier Jews also, since the Jews were 
"always very tenacious of their opinions, as, 
"Keil" (De Doctoribus &c. &c.) and Bertholdt 
<f (loc. cit. Sec. &c.) have trulv asserted. 

"*Note— See Eichhorn's Einleit in d. A. F. 
"Their. 1 i §213. 222,coll. 210. who there shows, 
"that the Pharaphrase [i. e. TargumJ of Onkelos, 
the oldest of those remaining, was composed 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION, 



355 



''about the year 300, after the birth of Christ, 
"Kuinoel comment in Johan Prolegcm. pp. 108^. 
109. 

Such are the passage and note in Kuinoel. — 
Now you say, here Kuinoel does by no means 
admit, that the Targums were not written till 
the 2d or 3d century. Why Sir, did you not 
point out the expression, or intimation, in which 
Kuinoel does by no means admit the later date 
of the Targums? Again you say, C( until the 2d 
or 3d century." What do you mean by this? — 
Kuinoel says nothing about the 2d or 3d centu- 
ry; he quotes Eichhorn for the date A. D. 300; 
and do you take that for the end of the second 
century or the third? I should jadge Sir, that in 
reckoning centuries, you make the first century 
begin with the year 100, and end at the year 
200 &c. Again, you say, Kuinoel in a note at 
the bottom of the page, [which note w T e have 
given entire above] refers to Eichhorn, as one 
who had offered some trifling reasons to show, 
that (he Targums were not written till the 3d 
or 4th century. But sir, Kuinoel says not a 
word about the ^trifling reasons;" therefore, you 
must father this invention yourself. We remem- 
ber a word respecting literary frauds or false- 
hoods. Again, you say, Kuinoel is decidedly 
in favour of the notion, that the Targums were 
written before Christ. Realty, I cannot see how 
you can extract any idea of this, from Ku mo- 
d's words. The facts as any body may see, by 
looking back to the passage from Kuinoel are 
these, viz: Kuinoel does not pretend to decide 
for himself the a^e of the Targums; but he ad- 
mits, that they were of a much la?er age, than 
£hat of Christ, without saying a word of their hav- 



536 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 



ing been written before; and then he refers to 
Eichborn as having showed, that the oldest of 
them, that of Onkelos, was composed as late as 
about A. D. 300. Observe, Kuinoel, says in 
the note, "See Eichhorn's Einleit * * who 
there shoivs, that the Paraphrase [i. e. the Tar- 
gum] of Onkelos was composed about A.D. S00. 
I will now add, that Kuinoel immediately pro- 
ceeds to quote, his proposed illustrations of Jew- 
ish opinions, not only from the Targums of On- 
kelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel, but also from 
the Jerusalem Targum and the Targum of 
Pseudo Jonathan: which two last are acknowl- 
edged by all critics, both Jewish and christian, 
so far as I ever heard to be even later than A. D. 
S00. So that referring to these collectively, as 
Kninoel does, in the above extract, it is impos- 
sible that he should suppose them to have been 
written before Christ. Thus do we see, the in- 
justice of your charge, of literary frauds and 
falsehoods. You are the man sir, who "suspects'* 
some of our " citations to be forgeries" and 
who says "his suspicions have not yet been re- 
moved." This is not strange; they seem,I regret 
to say, to be flourishing in a very congenial soil. 
But these things, together with your unfair quo- 
tations from Lexicons and Maclane's note in 
Mosheim, only serve to show, the weakness of 
your cause; for Truth requires the aid of no 
such measurts — it disdains them. These things 
are reluctantly mentioned, but I could not close 
this controversy, without disproving the charge 
which you preferred against me, and on the 
strength of which, you inferred that all my quo- 
tations, from German critics were false. My 
arguments therefore respecting the dates of the 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSS1NO. 



337 



Targums, must be admitted by all, nothing that 
you have said, has weakened them in the least. 
Indeed your attempt to make Kuinoel speak 
what he never intended, shows that you are 
conscious of the truth of my positions. 

It now remains for me to examine your pre- 
sent letter. 

1 . The promises of God- Under this head, you 
have a long paragraph of assertions and assump- 
tions, but you have not made a single allusion, to 
those promises, which I brought forward . as being 
unconditional. That God has conditional promi- 
ses I admitted. When he says to the Jews, ye 
shall know my breach of promise, he refers to a 
conditional promise of temporal good, which he 
had made them, which conditions they had not 
complied with. See Num. xiv. 34. So, when 
Paul said, "take heed, lest a promise being left 
them of entering into his rest, any of them should 
seem to come short of it," he refers to that con- 
ditional promise, which had been made, of rest 
to those, who would faithfully follow Jesus to 
the end of the Jewish dispensation. See the 
whole Epistle to the Hebrews, which relates to 
the trials of the christians, to their duties under 
these trials, their promise of deliverance, and 
rest at the coming of Christ. The conditional- 
ity of these promises I admit; but this admission 
does not weaken my position, that God has 
unconditionally promised the salvation of all men. 
Look again sir, at the promises of the new cov- 
enant as stated in my last letter; look too, at the 
promises made to Christ — Jehovah says, that he 
shall see of the travail of his soul and be satis- 
fied; that to him every knee shall bow, and tongue 
confess; and that the pleasure of the Lord shal I 



338 NHEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



prosper in his hands. There are no conditions 
here; and therefore,, we must regard these promi- 
ses, as expressing in the most full and positive 
manner, what God intends to do. Who dare add 
an if to the Divine testimony, when God has 
said all shall know Me, from the least, even 
unto the greatest? 

But you say, unless I can prove, that all God's 
promises are unconditional, it is vain to adduce 
them in favour of Universalism. Who Sir, did 
you suppose, would believe an assertion, so in- 
consistent as this? So far from this being requV 
site, if I can prove, that one promise, relating to 
the salvation of all men, is unconditional, it is 
sufficient; for shall we refuse to believe God un- 
less he piles promise upon promise? Again, you 
say, if my views are correct, wherein, is the 
use of a day of judgment? Well sir, I confess, 
I see no use for such a judgment as you teach, 
neither do I believe in it. Archimides said, he 
could raise the world, if he could only get a 
resting place for his lever; and you would prove 
the eternity of misery, if you could only have 
the privilege of assuming your premises. You 
here assume your application of scripture, and your 
notions of a judgment, and from these assump- 
tions you infer, that my sentiments are wrong! 

Nothing that you have said, therefore, affects 
my arguments in the least. Tears shall be wiped 
from all faces, and all shall sing the song of 
Moses and the lamb. This glorious result, God 
has unconditionally promised. 

2. Go&s oath. In my last, I proved, that God 
had declared by an oath, that Christ should 
possess the gate of his enemies, that alFshould be 
subjected to him, and that in him all the kin 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION* 



339 



dreds of the earth should be blessed. Your only 
reply is, lean see no proof in all this, of the 
total destruction of human mipery. Can you 
expect Sir, that such declarations will pass for 
argument? No man can expect this, it is there- 
fore, yielding- the question. 

Your proof, that God has sworn saying, some 
shall never be saved, is too far fetched; because 
1st. Paul does not, as you say,make an applica 
tion of the Psalmist's language; he simply draws 
from the example of those who fell in the wil- 
derness, and in consequence, did not enter Ca- 
naan, their long expected rest — I say he simply 
draws from them a warning example to the peo- 
ple of his age, and shows them, how they would 
come short of their expected rest, if there were 
in them, an evil heart of unbelief. But admit- 
ting that Paul did comment on the language of 
David, I deny that he was speaking of the final 
state of any. Nothing can be more evident, than 
that he referred to the rest of the faithful, after 
Christ should come and destroy those, who per- 
secuted the christians. This was a rest,, with 
which they were promised; by this, they were 
encouraged to faithfulness and perseverance. I 
know you have popular opinion on your side in 
this matter, but the Scriptures are our guide in 
this discussion; to them, all appeals should be 
made; and as these give the oath of Jehovah, 
against the eternity of misery, it does seem 
,that our doubts should be removed, and that we 
.should unhesitatingly admit, the great doctrine 
of infinite love and grace. 

"1 have sworn by myself, the word has gone 
out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not 
return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every 
58 



340 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION' 



tongue shall swear, surely shall say,, in the Lord, 
have I righteousness and strength." Such is the 
work which God has sworn, he will perform. 

3. God's will. In your remarks on this subject, 
you have overlooked two important particular. I . 
That as God works all things after the counsel 
of his own will, and as it is his will that all 
men shall be saved, he could not place man under 
circumstances or give him powers, which he 
knew would prove his endless ruin, for that 
would be acting against his will. 2. In the same 
verse, where the apostle speaks of the will of 
God, to save all, he speaks of his purpose. Thus 
he says "having made known unto us the mys- 
tery of his will, according to his own good plea- 
sure, which he hath purposed in himself, &c. 
Here we see, that what God willed, respecting 
the final condition of men, he purposed. . Hence 
it is his will of purpose, to save all men. And 
dare you, dare any man say, that this will,, will 
not be accomplished? "As God has thought so 
shall it come to pass, and as he has purposed, so 
shall it stand.'' 

In view of these two considerations, who can 
say, that God's will concerning the final destiny 
of the world, will be defeated? Defeated! 

Cf Hold! shall the recording angel, as he regis- 
ters the last line, in the book of human destinies, 
make the mortifying report in Heaven," that fi- 
nite man was too great for the Almighty, that 
God's arm was shortened, that he could not save? 
So says Mr. McKee. But what says Jehovah? 
Ans. My council shall stand, and I icill do all 
my pleasure." 

But you tell us, that God's will is defeated 
with Tespect to the present conduct of men; and 



•TrtEOXOGICAL DISCUSSION. S4'$ 



therefore, it may be, with respect to their eternal 
salvation. This is a contracted view of the sub- 
ject; and one remark will be sufficient to show 
its error. There are some things, which GoS 
wills in themselves considered, such as virtue 
and happiness. There are other things, which 
he wills all things considered, such as sin and 
punishment. He wills them, because he makes 
them instrumental in accomplishing what he 
desires in itself considered. Consequently, it is 
the very height of absurdity to say, in some 
things, the will of God is frustrated; and it would 
seem, that no man, who has reflected on the per- 
fections of God and his government, could for a 
moment entertain a sentiment so preposterous. 
While the Bible declares, then, that God works 
all things, after the counsel of his own will, I 
shall never be found in the ranks of those, who 
teach, that man can defeat the will of God. 

4. The decree of God. Your remarks respecting 
the decree of God, require no answer. You may 
feign, not to see in the words of David (Psal. 2. 
7, 8.) any thing which teaches that God has de- 
creed universal salvation; but while it reads — "I 
will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto 
me, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten 
thee. — Ask of me, and I shall give thee the hea- 
then, for thine inheritance, and ' the uttermost 
parts of the earth for thy possession," I have no 
fears, but what our readers will see, the proof, 
for which I contend. v 

How could it be said, that Christ was appointed 
heir of all things, if there were contingencies 
about it? How could he be called heir of all things, 
unless he inherits them? These are the two points 
embraced in my remarks on this subject; and until 
59 



342 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 

these are refuted, my arguments remain in their 
full force. But you say, "all things" do not mean 
all men. Now I respectfully ask, on what author! 
ty such an assertion can be made? Did not Christ 
come to save all men? Did he not invite all to 
his kingdom? Did he not die for all? If so, by 
what authority can you say, he is not the appoint- 
ed heir of all? Do you believe Sir, lhat God 
would send his Son to accomplish, what he knew 
would never be done? How shall we reconcile 
your notion, that Christ will not succeed in the 
work he came to do, with those numerous pas- 
sages, which teach, that the pleasure of the Lord 
will prosper in his hands, that he shall not fail, 
nor be discouraged, that it is a light thing for 
him to accomplish this work, and that he shall 
see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied? I 
confess Sir, that while thus surrounded with the 
testimony of God, in support of my views, I am 
content to believe with the Apostle, that "Christ 
is appointed heir of all things." This is the 
decree of the infinite Jehovah. The heathen 
shall be his inheritance and the uttermost parts 
of the earth his possession. 

I have now, Dear Sir, gone through with an 
examination of all your arguments against Uni < 
versalism, and of your strictures on the few 
proofs, which I have brought in its defence. For 
some reason, best known to yourself, you have 
found it convenient to pass in entire silence, a 
great portion of my arguments, or with the sim- 
ple remark, that they were unworthy of notice. 
On this, I make no comment, the reader must 
draw his own inference. 

In conclusion I will only say, I am truly sorry x 
that so few of the arguments, on which UniVer- 



THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 84$ 

salism is established, have been examined in this 
discussion. Those which have been introduced,, 
are only, as it were, the first chapter^ to a whole 
volume. The arguments are numerous which, 
yet remain untouched. The mercy of God, his 
long suffering, his everlasting kindness and com- 
passion; the grace of God, the Unsearchable rich- 
es of his grace, together with his exceeding greats 
and precious promises; the immutability of God> 
the unchanging nature of his love and goodness; 
the faithfulness of God, which endureth from 
generation to generation , and which is established 
in the very heavens: — The love and tenderness 
of Christ, the universality and object of his death, 
his untiring zeal and faithfulness, his devotion 
to the interests of mankind, his miracles of mer- 
cy, his prayer of forgiveness, his tears of sym- 
pathy, his bloody sweat, his unerring wisdom, 
his impartial love, his unconquerable power, his 
promises of grace, his will, his purpose, his tri- 
umphant death and resurrection: — The kingdom 
of Christ, its pure principles, its perfect laws 
its peaceful nature, its holy provisions, and its 
final spread from sea to sea and the rivers to the 
ends of the earth: — The Gospel of Christ, its 
wisdom, love and grace; its efficacy and perfec- 
tion, the light which it imparts, the hopes which 
it inspires, and the grand prospects which it dis- 
closes; its motives to duty, its dissuasions from 
vice, and its pressing invitations of mercy: — 
The permanency of virtue, its power to impart 
peace joy, to satisfy the mind, to meet its 
wants, to soothe its afflictions, to heal its wounds, 
and to throw a halo of glory over the charms and 
pleasures of earth— all these, I desired to bring 



344 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION. 



forward and illustrate, and to show how folly 
they prove the great doctrine of Universal Sal - 
vation. But you commenced this discussion, and 
you have a right to say, when it shall end. I 
will therefore only add, as an apology for the many 
imperfections in the style of my letters, that they 
have been written in the greatest haste, and un- 
der circumstances which prevented their revi- 
sion. For in addition to my weekly preparations 
for the pulpit, my parochial visits, and family 
duties, I have had the whole care and manage- 
ment of our weekly journal, besides travelling 
much to proclaim the good news of salvation. 
Being thus situated, [ have paid no attention to 
style; my w T hole aim has been, to meet your ar- 
suments, and if my language has be en intelligi- 
ble to the reader, my object, in this respect, has 
been fully gained. 

I hold Sir, to no doctrine which I amjfnot 
willing to defend. I am ready therefore lo dis- 
cuss with you, any point; cn which we may be 
at issue. Truth, has nothing to fear from in- 
vestigation. She courts inquiry. This dis- 
closes her excellencies, reveals her beauties and 
fair proportions, and imparts to her beams a 
new lustre and glory. Finally, if our present 
discussion, has been the means of swelling, in 
any degree, the tide of human advancement, of 
lifting one soul up in knowledge, of imparting to 
one mind the light of truth, or of disarming 
prejudice of any of its powers, I shall feel com- 
pensated for the toil and labour, it has cost me. 

I remain, Dear Sir; your sincere Friend 
and Brother, in the bonds of Christ, 
Otis A. Skinner. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



